President Donald Trump acknowledged having called federal prosecutors in California to probe the state’s primary election results, claiming without evidence on Tuesday that his intervention resulted in Republican Steve Hilton advancing to the runoff in the gubernatorial race.
That’s not what that ruling actually says and the government investigating Joe Biden and his family makes it clear that only applies to a sitting president taking part in presidential matters. The ruling effectively says active investigation/prosecution can’t happen while in office only after they leave office and presidential duties are only able to be strictly defined after a president leaves office and an investigation takes place.
Never leave, never prosecute. That’s the plan.
You get that not being charged with a crime ≈ unable to be charged correct?
He’ll probably die before he’s charged, his admin though they’ll be the ones to end up in prison or finding their way to a long drop with a short fall.
No, because that’s a lie.Actually, no, wait: I think you just wrote ≈ when you meant ≠ .
What’s a lie
And yes does not equal.
“not being charged with a crime [is approximately equal to being] unable to be charged” would’ve been a lie, if that had been what you meant to write.
But you knew that’s not what I meant boss.
Hence crossing it out.
At the end of the day it’s the same thing. Laws are meaningless. It doesn’t matter what words you wrap around it to win an argument online.
They aren’t at all the same thing. The way you phase it they couldn’t investigate Biden but they are so clearly it isn’t the way you’re asserting. Nuance is important in legal matters there is generally not a “close enough” when talking about linguistics in law.