IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
So the generally accepted
"argument" underpinning
the DOJ policy of barring
indictment, prosecution
of a sitting POTUS is
that it would "uncons-
titutionally undermine
the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its
constitutionally assigned duties."; Except... <<; there's
this. The whole point of having a Vice-POTUS and a
chain of succession is to have a back-up... and
a back up for the back-up... and a back-up for
the back-up for the back-up... and so on all the
way down the line. Anyway, the upshot is that it's to maintain
continuity of government should the POTUS
be unable, unwilling or otherwise indisposed
relative the job. Also, it's already precedent
that that a sitting President is subject to civil
prosecution over matters arising prior to their
current term... -which brings things to the extremely
distracting nature of any court appearance
where one is the defendant --i.e. there's very
little difference in stress/distraction levels
between civil and criminal courts sooo...
yeah... the DOJ's supporting argument
doesn't really hold up in light of civil
prosecution's acceptability. Of course, there's the little matter of the
SCOTUS ruling on P.I. relative to crimes
committed while in office. But there's the
catch: the ruling's scope is contingent
on the policy being in effect -with said
policy and its dependent SCOTUS rulings
rendered null and void (not that it's likely to
happen) should Congress override/eliminate
it via unanimous legislation (you know...
like they did with the Epstein Files). Soooo yeah... just thought I'd
put that out there as... idk...
a warning? A dope-slap back
of Congress' head to remind
it of its responsibility,
authority to correct this
nonsense? Something-
something seems relevant and/
or important to point out?
Whatever... there it is; make of it what you will.
