Because average citizens and politicians don't generally attract (unceasing) partisan lawfare that is tantamount to systemic corruption.
When prosecutors campaign on pursuing an individual, when such efforts are multipolar and unending, and when the sum effort looks corrupt to a large portion of the country, then it seems obvious to suggest that outrage at a resultant SC ruling, which would not have otherwise come under consideration, is crying over one's self-inflicted medicine.
I don't think that it is healthy that this was put to the SC.
But it was absolutely inevitable given the various prosecutorial efforts and the norm breaking they represent. Even ignoring the open political corruption, and lies, involving them. Though, these aspects aren't necessary to ignore.
In short, breaking norms to pursue Trump was worth the squeeze for them. They were squeezed. That's it.
Assuming that these aren't crocodile tears over a ruling that will protect others from actual accused crimes of the past, or what might come in the future. That these prosecutions weren't specifically brought to force this result. Which is entirely possible. Certainly, such a benefit will be had.
If I understand this correctly, the core effect of this is to essentially transfer the gateway through which it is possible to prosecute a president from any AG's office to Congress.
I suspect which will serve to further entrench establishment power, of which Biden's camp is a part. Presidents within Congressional graces will be effectively immune, crime or no crime. Presidents outside of them may not be so much.
Whomever lived through 2016-2020 and thinks that Trump will have some kind of Congressional carte blanche either hasn't thought this through or is being deceptive.
Compare the improbability of Trump being able to swerve out of his lane, as far as Congress is concerned, and what Obama was able to legally get away with without stirring Congress.
Now predicated on the precedent of Obama's extrajudicial action, Trump may have been able to carry out extrajudicial acts during his term. But no one who was watching thinks that anything without a precedent would have resulted in anything except another Trump impeachment.
Did you really refer to charging Trump for several felonies for which there is abundant evidence, "lawfare?" That is a weird way to say "consequences for breaking the law."
Then I guess Trump has only been successfully prosecuted (so far) for 11.33 days' actions of his presidency. That's a lot of days to go. I can see why he needs immunity.
Actually based on that logic, we all need immunity! Quick, let's get rid of laws entirely.
When prosecutors campaign on pursuing an individual, when such efforts are multipolar and unending, and when the sum effort looks corrupt to a large portion of the country, then it seems obvious to suggest that outrage at a resultant SC ruling, which would not have otherwise come under consideration, is crying over one's self-inflicted medicine.
I don't think that it is healthy that this was put to the SC.
But it was absolutely inevitable given the various prosecutorial efforts and the norm breaking they represent. Even ignoring the open political corruption, and lies, involving them. Though, these aspects aren't necessary to ignore.
In short, breaking norms to pursue Trump was worth the squeeze for them. They were squeezed. That's it.
Assuming that these aren't crocodile tears over a ruling that will protect others from actual accused crimes of the past, or what might come in the future. That these prosecutions weren't specifically brought to force this result. Which is entirely possible. Certainly, such a benefit will be had.
If I understand this correctly, the core effect of this is to essentially transfer the gateway through which it is possible to prosecute a president from any AG's office to Congress.
I suspect which will serve to further entrench establishment power, of which Biden's camp is a part. Presidents within Congressional graces will be effectively immune, crime or no crime. Presidents outside of them may not be so much.
Whomever lived through 2016-2020 and thinks that Trump will have some kind of Congressional carte blanche either hasn't thought this through or is being deceptive.
Compare the improbability of Trump being able to swerve out of his lane, as far as Congress is concerned, and what Obama was able to legally get away with without stirring Congress.
Now predicated on the precedent of Obama's extrajudicial action, Trump may have been able to carry out extrajudicial acts during his term. But no one who was watching thinks that anything without a precedent would have resulted in anything except another Trump impeachment.