Every Democrat, for the past 24 hours or so:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nSCOTUS: You can\u2019t just throw your rival in prison because you don\u2019t like him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
DEMOCRATS: So you\u2019re saying we can drop bombs on him? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
SCOTUS: You really can\u2019t even charge your rival with a crime because his presidency made you mad. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
DEMOCRATS: Got it. So we can incinerate his house with him in it? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
SCOTUS: The Constitution protects officials from being terrorized with lawfare for official actions they undertook while in office. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
DEMOCRATS: Ah. Makes sense. So we can officially assassinate everyone we don\u2019t like? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
SCOTUS: Prosecuting a politician because you don\u2019t like his politics would destroy our country, and we\u2019re not going to allow it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
DEMOCRATS: Roger that. So what you\u2019re saying is: we are officially allowed to eliminate Trump and the Supreme Court as long as we, like, say it\u2019s official and stuff?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
While I wish I could claim it, it’s actually Sean Davis’s bit<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
And it’s been all over social media this past day or so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
At first blush, the question might seem to be<\/a> “why do so many Democrat chanting heads have so much trouble with the phrase ‘”‘presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts that are within the ambit of their executive authority'”?<\/p>\n\n\n\n