That’d be fine, but simplest move for Biden is to install Hunter as Veep, then have Hunter declare Joe the winner of the election next January. When Joe kicks the bucket a few months later, the presidency gets handed down from father to son as God intended.
It’s easy to fix. Joe appoints pro-constitution justices, they in turn prosecute him for murder.
“The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act.”
Based on what standard? How could a trial court reach such a decision in a way that won’t be overturned?
The Supremos have sent this back to the courts with the message that there’s only one way to decide and no plausible way to reach another conclusion that will hold up.
Did you find anywhere in the decision where they make an exception for lying?
The mere act of talking to the VP about it is contemplated and by default (according to this ruling) protected. You can’t tell the VP to change the electors without talking to him!
Edit: Obviously the fact that the pres. committed a crime can’t be considered as a reason to deny immunity, otherwise it wouldn’t be immunity.
Trying to convince the VP to fraudulently say no to the EC count is the crime. The president and the vice president don’t get to pick the next president. The electoral college does. The only legitimate reason the VP could say no to the EC count is if for some reason the count itself were wrong, in which case the VP and Senate should correct it and move on.
That, of course, wasn’t the basis for the discussion. Trump was trying to get his fake electors counted, or to at least have Pence declare that he couldn’t tell which electors were real.
BTW, my Lemmy instance isn’t showing replies to your comment, including my own reply, so if it didn’t come across, I’m sorry but I don’t know what else to try.
From the decision:
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official re- sponsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the Jan- uary 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification pro- ceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presump- tively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
They’ve already said Donny is most likely immune for pressuring Pence to overturn the electoral college. Yeah, they’ve remanded it to lower court, but it’s already clear if the lower court doesn’t go the way they want, the Supremos will just flip it.
Yep, last week on “The Supremos”, corrupt justices legalized bribery in one decision, then declared themselves the ultimate regulators in the next.
Not that narrow. They are saying fomenting an attack on Congress and conspiring to subvert the electoral college are official acts.
“And if the new supreme court allows me to be charged for this act, so much the better.”
He’s already been a really good president. It’s not like people need to read the tea leaves to know what he’s about.
Heck, we already know he’s pro-America, doesn’t take money from foreign governments, isn’t trying to become a dictator, and didn’t give away nuclear secrets.
That puts him several points above the other guy.
30% of the population is pro-tyranny.
That’s the real danger of Donny. If you care at all about the country you have to vote for the Democrat. It gives the Dems too much power.
The tradition for an out-of-it pres is the first lady runs the show.
Let’s dig a little deeper.
The only reason to make divorce harder is if they also take away a woman’s rights to be independent from her husband, otherwise she could just leave without getting a divorce.
What does “moderate” mean, owned by some corp?
Convicted felon and Jan. 6 conspirator Mike Flynn?
Unregistered foreign agent Mike Flynn?
The founders did anticipate direct democracy, the two-party system, and demagoguery. These were much discussed. They weren’t able to provide perfectly for these eventualities, which also was well understood at the time.
The constitution clearly doesn’t allow a president to be removed from office by a prosecution, but it just as clearly doesn’t offer any immunity to a prosecution for presidents and not to mention ex-presidents. There’s never been a presidency, including Donny’s, where a criminal charge was even contemplated that would have impinged on a president’s legitimate duties.