QED Bitchez: You Cannot Investigate A Sitting Prznint For ANY Crimes!

Clue: In the Conservatory On 5th Ave.*, Gun, Mango-hued Shitgibbon

Could it shoot someone on the White House Lawn.

Prznint Stupid’s sharks, er, lawyers literally argued that if Comrade Stupid shot someone on 5th Avenue in NYC in broad daylight, law enforcement officers couldn’t do anything about it while he was in office. It’s a novel argument: It’s illegal to investigate a sitting president for any crimes he may have committed.

“The framers of our Constitution understood that state and local prosecutors would be tempted to criminally investigate the president to advance their own careers and to advance their political agendas. And they likewise understood that having to defend against these actions would distract the president from his constitutional duties.”

Lawyers from the prestigious firm of Dewey, Screwem, and Howe, er, Consovoy McCarthy made the novel claim of immunity while fighting a subpoena for Trump’s tax returns in federal appeals court, arguing that a sitting president cannot be the subject of a criminal investigation or indictment.

Asked by Judge Chin about temporary presidential immunity, and using the statement Trump made that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and not “lose any voters,” Comrade Stupid’s attorney William Consovoy said that yeah that would totes be cool with the founding fathers.

Chin: “Local authorities couldn’t investigate? They couldn’t do anything about it? Nothing could be done? That is your position?”

Consovoy: “That is correct.”

Judges have already declared this argument is bananas, (technical legal term meaning “bananas”) but that was nice of Consovoy to prove that all those judges are right.

* See the comments for details. Thanks to BDR for obvious improvment!

This entry was posted in Comrade Preznint Stupid, The Russian Usurper, People Dumber than Dolphins. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to QED Bitchez: You Cannot Investigate A Sitting Prznint For ANY Crimes!

  1. Scottie says:

    Hello TG. It is weird that we have court cases about this again. These issues have already been decided for both Nixon and Clinton and the courts have said no to this idea. So what is the point of raising the question again? Do they hope because it is tRump the court will change the way these were decided? Do they hope to just run this out as long as possible? I do not get the plan they have on this. Hugs

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bruce388 says:

      Since the Republicans have been installing judges over the years, maybe the hope is those judges will be sympathetic to Dotard’s excuses.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Oh TG, you’re slipping! You missed:

    Clue: In the Conservatory On Fifth Avenue, Gun, Mango-hued Shitgibbon


    Liked by 2 people

  3. Dennis Cole says:

    I firmly believe this legal theory should be put to the test ASAP, so as to ascertain the provability. Besides, as well – it’s deeply rooted in European jurisprudence, having been known at one time as “The Divine Right of Kings.”

    And as for that “distract him from his duties” argument, why the hell do we have need of a VP?

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Diane says:

    If the framers of the Constitution came back and saw what was going on here, they would thrash these idiots to death.(or within an inch of their miserable lives) That includes the orange wad.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. roket says:

    I believe the legal term they’re searching for here is Diplomatic Immunity.

    “If some drunk ass bit*h in England can get away with murder why can’t I here in this country?” Donnie Dorko most likely has said.

    Liked by 5 people

  6. YellowDog says:

    I wish Judge Chin had asked the followup questions. “What if the president* then shot a first responder in the head?” “What if the president* shot a visiting head of state, such as the Queen of England?”

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Ten Bears says:

    What if someone shot back?


Comments are closed.