Peter Wallison, Emeritus at AEI, offers absurd conclusion in TRUMP V. UNITED STATES

[johnwk]

It most certainly does. The charges listed in the D.C. indictment of Trump are allegations of crimes committed by Trump, while Trump was President and are directly related to his Presidency.

Why do you reject an irrefutable fact?

.

I don't reject that fact. I reject the entirely goofy-assed notion that Trump is too damned famous or too damned official or too damned good for a court of law. And you can't be so stupid that you didn't know that.

Lay off the childish gotcha games. Nobody's impressed.

I certainly have not advanced " . . . the entirely goofy-assed notion that Trump is too damned famous or too damned official or too damned good for a court of law."

What I have laid out, and provided sufficient supportive documentation for, is our founder's intended due process procedure for one holding a federal office of public trust who violates that trust and engages in criminal acts.

I'm getting the impression you do not approve of our Founder's remedy which is an important part of our Constitution.

JWK