Claiming a president is immune from
prosecution for ANY act committed while in office makes that question absurd? Just when we think you can’t possibly go further down the rabbit hole you prove us wrong.
BTW, reductio ad absurdum is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction. In this case the justice was showing that the Trump teams’ claim would lead to absurdity, not that the opposite of their claim would. [Post edited by SixerHoo at 02/06/2024 12:02PM]
|
(
In response to this post by Los Angeles Hoo)
Posted: 02/06/2024 at 11:52AM