The argument that Trump's lawyer made for why the former president has immunity reminded me of a child caught in a lie by an adult, but the child is trying to explain his way out of it. I am glad I missed most of it because the part I heard was unconvincing and dangerous. How can he claim that impeachment was the only appropriate remedy when he opposed his impeachment by saying he could only be held accountable for criminal acts after leaving office?
This is a clear example of contradictory rhetoric. I am deeply concerned that many of my fellow citizens are being deceived by this. I hope that they will soon realize the truth and act accordingly. One might assume that only uneducated people are susceptible to the former president's deception. But that is not the case. Many well-educated people have abandoned their rationality and prioritized a false narrative over what they know is right.
It is undeniable that the founders, despite their shortcomings, were opposed to the concept of a monarchy. The notion of complete immunity would have been considered absurd to them.

Support the show