Is he really claiming that? I thought your constitution would have something to stop that? The magna carta set out that a king wasn't above the law 800 years ago.
Laws are for chumps, not for Trumps. Or so the ex-President is officially arguing. “A president has to have immunity, otherwise you just have a ceremonial president.”
I like "You can't impeach the President without them first having been charged with a crime!" next to "You have to impeach and convict the president before you can charge them with a crime!".
These two incompatible legal arguments were both used by Trump's lawyers at one point.
Ah, but if a president can do whatever they want without being held legally responsible, then they can punish someone regardless of whether or not they're legally responsible for what they did.
That comes with a fun loophole - if the courts decide that presidents are immune to all legal repercussions, then Biden can just illegally arrest Trump and throw him in prison for no reason, and suffer no legal repercussions for it.
Nixon still had Congressional support until shortly before articles of impeachment were sent to the House floor (late July 1974, and never voted on) which was 3 years after the Pentagon Papers were first published (June 1971). He was only forced to resign AFTER the media started covering the scandal and what it actually meant in depth and Congress was having to actually start answering questions from constituents.
There's a reason propaganda-based "news" organizations like Fox News were created after Nixon, and regulations like the Fairness Doctrine were removed under Reagan. It was so they could control the media commentary and insert their own propaganda under the guise of impartial "news" services.
Organizations prior obviously had biases, but national news organizations were generally pretty balanced, nothing like many modern day organizations despite their clear lies about being balanced.
