Most likely around 2:40am.I don't have to. I've already thought about it longer than that.
Most likely around 2:40am.I don't have to. I've already thought about it longer than that.
You better go convict 80% of Real Estate developers then. I worked for some in the past, and what is considered illegal, may be by the letter of the law and I am not going to argue that, but it's done on the daily, and NO one on the left can get past that.
All they see is convict, convict!
Sorry @dbjork6317. I realized I did not answer. I actually agree (pending the official language). But what I said above still applies.
Also, not in agreement with "term limits", but maybe "ending term". Meaning, your term ends after so many years and then you have to either be reappointed for another term or replaced.
Why does that matter? This was his personal business. Take off your DJT hatred glasses. If he was not a threat to the left's agenda do you think he would have been in court for this?Have they been U.S. Presidents?
Why does that matter? This was his personal business. Take off your DJT hatred glasses. If he was not a threat to the left's agenda do you think he would have been in court for this?
Right, so Trump can ask all he wants. No need for a constitutional amendment.
You immediately go to Trump instead of thinking about the implications for ALL presidents. Think a little bit farther than your hatred. Your TDS is showing.
It did define them. No more than a constitutional amendment is going to. Legalize doesn't allow you to cross every I and dot every T. The president acting in his duties gets immunity. If he isn't acting in his duties then he doesn't get it. What is so hard with that.It does require one because the SCOTUS granted presidential immunity, but didn't define those actions that would be covered by immunity and things that would not.
See, now how come nobody ever explained it like this to me before? I get it now.The president acting in his duties gets immunity. If he isn't acting in his duties then he doesn't get it. What is so hard with that.
You brought up real estate agents which didn't have anything to do with this discussion of presidential immunity...not me.
Also...I don't hate anyone
It did define them. No more than a constitutional amendment is going to. Legalize doesn't allow you to cross every I and dot every T. The president acting in his duties gets immunity. If he isn't acting in his duties then he doesn't get it. What is so hard with that.
Because you can't just say "presidential duties." So, what duties get immunity, and which ones don't? It is not black and white right now. It's a bunch of gray.
Let's assume that 10 years from now, someone is president and all of a sudden goes in a rage and shoots his cabinet at a meeting and kills them all. In the current definition of presidential duty...that president could say it was a presidential act and he is immune to murder charges.
That is an example...maybe not a great one, but best I could. My brain is tired.
Do we need a list of bad things for you to understand?See, now how come nobody ever explained it like this to me before? I get it now.
#votered
Yes, please, I would love one.Do we need a list of bad things for you to understand?