I’m not disagreeing with you, but at least those awful actions are plausibly covered as a presidential act made in the country’s interests. I’m not saying they were good for the US, just that they could argue that was the process.
Trump’s shit is all self-serving and against the interests of the United States.
I’m not saying they were good for the US, just that they could argue that was the process.
Even if they make the worst, most destructive decisions that most of their constituents disagree with, it’s still a presidential act. I assume they can’t be charged in the US. Might be different in an international court, but I think we refuse to recognize their authority or something, because U-S-A! U-S-A!
I’m sure it goes without saying, but legal wrongs and moral wrongs are very different things, like in this case.
The argument would be “I’m immune because it’s a presidential act” and not “I did the right thing.” Kind of like how cops get away with horrible shit because of qualified immunity.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but at least those awful actions are plausibly covered as a presidential act made in the country’s interests. I’m not saying they were good for the US, just that they could argue that was the process.
Trump’s shit is all self-serving and against the interests of the United States.
If your country’s interests require committing mass murder (like Bush Jr or Obama did), then your country is an awful evil place.
I cannot disagree with you there!
That’s mostly what I meant by this sentence:
Even if they make the worst, most destructive decisions that most of their constituents disagree with, it’s still a presidential act. I assume they can’t be charged in the US. Might be different in an international court, but I think we refuse to recognize their authority or something, because U-S-A! U-S-A!
Mhhh yes lying about WMDs in Iraq to bomb the entire country to rubble and steal their oil. That’s a lot worse than bribing a porn star
I’m sure it goes without saying, but legal wrongs and moral wrongs are very different things, like in this case.
The argument would be “I’m immune because it’s a presidential act” and not “I did the right thing.” Kind of like how cops get away with horrible shit because of qualified immunity.
You know that’s not what he was tried for and convicted of. You’re just arguing in bad faith.