Rachel Maddow BOMBSHELL!

[olegramps]

102. What I would like to know is just when and who declared this to be the fact.

Why, because it has never been actually tested. How does that stand with the absolute thinking of the founders who wrote extensively in the Federal Papers that a democracy is founded on the principle that no one is above the law. This is the bed rock principle upon which the so-called divinely justified authority of kings was above question and which was absolutely denounced as heresy by the founders of our republic. Under the law that we live under, each and every person is accountable for their actions even to the extent that ignorance is not even excusable. It is founded upon the concept that people of sound mind are endowed with the concept of right and wrong. What we are witnessing is a person in power who is assuming powers that the constitution never provided.

The claim that a president can not be indicted is nonsense in view of the principle that no one in above the law. Who in the hell convinently provide this exception. The constitution provides for the secussion of power in case the president in incapacitated. I find the argument that the president is indisposal for the operation of government to be a fallacious argument to circumnatigate the duty that each and every citizens is to be held accountable regardless of their claims of indispensibilty. It sounds like something that Dumposwitz dreamed up during his nape.