I might not be a Constitutional scholar, but... [View all]

[Silent3]

...I think it's quite fair to say the clear and obvious point of our Constitution, and the war for independence for that matter, was to make sure our country didn't have a king or a dictator. That everyone, the President included, had to be constrained by checks and balances, and had to be answerable to the law.

The type of immunity from prosecution Trump seeks would effectively grant the Presidency dictatorial power, especially with a complaint Congress, or a Congress made compliant by, under immunity, killing off whichever members of the Congress got in the way.

Therefore it is self-apparent such immunity was never intended, and it can't be allowed. Even if you consider the Constitution "a living document", there would be no sense in pretending dictatorship is a proper direction for any evolution of the Constitution to follow.

The Constitution sure as hell shouldn't be treated as a "gotcha" document, where, if you find just the right way to twist words or apply precedents, you can rightfully come out and say, "Yeah, we know you didn't want to have a dictatorship, but you just weren't careful enough to avoid this one neat trick for creating a dictatorship when you wrote the Constitution, so sorry, you lose!"

So what the fuck is the hold up?

I understand a need for federal judges to be much more deep and precise in their analysis than my dashed-off internet post, but please, in the end, there is only one non-corrupt conclusion at which we can reasonably arrive.