I would say the percentage of people participating in violence in the BLM riots was more than Jan 6th. Did people just break into businesses and loot during the revolutionary war?
I wouldn't unless it's the few exceptions for using the military for domestic issues that have been used before.
No, it's not, unofficial actions are not immune.
You understand that the only people who get to determine what counts as what here are federal judges, whose decisions can be challenged. For the president to pull a fast one like you are suggesting, they'd need basically the whole federal court system to agree.
Actually they'd just need five supreme court justices, but of course such a seizure of the judiciary would never take place, and, even if it did, the honorable justices would never sink so low as to let partisan bias sway them.
Then nothing is immune, except things that are already legal and thus have nothing to be immune from.
Yes. Federal judges, who in America are political appointees, some of them appointed by the defendant. It continues to beggar belief that Americans are happy to overlook that colossal conflict of interest.
You can still easily argue that commanding the military to do something that is illegal isn't a core function. Also, nothing really changed in how you go after a president, you still have to impeach them. Even Nixon wasn't arrested and he was caught as red handed as one could be.
They literally threw tea into a harbour. The whole thing started because smuggling was rampant
If the President does something and has the approval of the courts up to the Supreme Court, and enough support in the Legislative branch to dodge removal from office, and support of the cabinet to avoid 25th amendment issues, and enough support from the American public that none of these previously mentioned are swayed by public outcry, then the entire nation can conspire to allow the president off the hook for something that could have otherwise been thrown in jail for, sure. No one prosecutor is going to overcome all of that, no matter how legally justified. I don't think that spells the end of democracy.
Well, yes, there was a lot of that, not least because the military was left badly supplied much of the time.
"Approval of the courts up to the Supreme Court": Not required; just a few select justices in the right places, and he personally can appoint who he wants. The highest possible judicial authority has already been rigged.
As always, lets imagine the scenario backwards. Imagine Republicans were trying to take Biden to court over actions in office, and the Supreme Court gave back this exact ruling verbatim. Do you panic, or do you defend the Court?
The ruling itself would be just as dangerously permissive regardless of what prompted it. It's cute that you continue to ascribe any/all criticism to partisanship, but I've personally condemned various shit Biden has done, and also condemned judicial rulings that benefitted Democrats.
Going to actually address the substance of the posts to which you're responding, or just sheer denial?
You think the cops were actually going after everyone that was looting? I don't even live in a big city or anything and there was concrete dividers blocking the mall entrances, national guard at Walmart, and snow plows blocking exits/entrances on the expressway (I had to go around one to get home one day). You think that was being done because only 14,000 people in the country were looting? Even people that did absolutely nothing on Jan 6th were arrested and jailed by the FBI.
"No U" is indeed fair play, though it also makes it abundantly clear you can't address the substance.
You have literally just been arguing that the absence of official charges is evidence that crime didn't happen.
