Replaced Garland with someone who would actually do their job.
What should he do differently? Trump has claimed that the DOJ has been weaponized to keep him from becoming president. If the court of public opinion believes that (and a lot of people do) then Merrick Garland has to be absolutely sure he can win a case before prosecuting Trump otherwise more people will believe it’s just a ‘witch hunt’ and it will be harder to try again.
He could have also just shot Trump in the face, because the SC gave him a blank check to do whatever.
The SC ruling was that Presidents have immunity when exercising the “core powers” of the presidency. I doubt shooting Trump in the face would be considered that and it would only empower future presidents to do the same.
Trump is a threat to the constitution. The president has an obligation to protect it.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Ergo, shooting Trump in the face would be a core power of the president.
I don’t disagree but the court of public opinion would. And doing this would give grounds for the next president that comes along like Trump to just shoot their political opponents.
If the next opponent straight up said they’d be dictator on day one, and people wouldn’t need to vote ever again, after leading a violent insurrection attempt, I’d fully support them being executed for sedition and treason.
The point is there’s not going to be another opponent, and that’s what Biden needs to stop.
I would too. But the majority of voters seem to think Trump was just joking when he said those things. And the voters get to decide what politicians get away with.
Replaced Garland with someone who would actually do their job.
He could have also just shot Trump in the face, because the SC gave him a blank check to do whatever.
So you’d replace Garland and the new AG would do what, exactly? Fire Jack Smith?
What should he do differently? Trump has claimed that the DOJ has been weaponized to keep him from becoming president. If the court of public opinion believes that (and a lot of people do) then Merrick Garland has to be absolutely sure he can win a case before prosecuting Trump otherwise more people will believe it’s just a ‘witch hunt’ and it will be harder to try again.
The SC ruling was that Presidents have immunity when exercising the “core powers” of the presidency. I doubt shooting Trump in the face would be considered that and it would only empower future presidents to do the same.
Trump is a threat to the constitution. The president has an obligation to protect it.
Ergo, shooting Trump in the face would be a core power of the president.
I don’t disagree but the court of public opinion would. And doing this would give grounds for the next president that comes along like Trump to just shoot their political opponents.
If the next opponent straight up said they’d be dictator on day one, and people wouldn’t need to vote ever again, after leading a violent insurrection attempt, I’d fully support them being executed for sedition and treason.
The point is there’s not going to be another opponent, and that’s what Biden needs to stop.
I would too. But the majority of voters seem to think Trump was just joking when he said those things. And the voters get to decide what politicians get away with.