It did, which is good in the short-term, but this is a dangerous development in the long term. Keep in mind both Loeffler and Perdue haven’t conceded, either, despite the race being called by major news organizations.
As an aside, there was also a senator in PA who was refused a seat for no legitimate reason except for suspicion of voter fraud. That’s the bar now for the Republican party: if you lose, you can claim that you suspect fraud or that you feel fraud was committed; you needn’t have proof. You can then deny someone a seat if you have the political power and will to do so. Voters in many districts are probably willing to go along with this, too.
I think the agitation is regrettable but will be short lived. It’s easy to talk tough but when things become serious the mice all run into the corner. Especially political mice.
Although Trump’s call probably had some effect, this was much smaller than it should have been. It was a close race; fortunately not likely within recount territory.
Georgia has a lot of people serving or who have served in the military. Trump vetoing a 3% pay raise gave the Republican senators less to talk about. They were also put in the position of defending Trump, sucking up to Trump and disavowing Trump all at the same time - difficult and pleasing few.
I understood the argument about federal prosecutions to be that as head of the executive, the president cannot be answerable to lower members of the executive who answer to the president.
None of that applies to a prosecution under state law.
I believe he is shielded from prosecution while in office for Federal crimes. I don’t think there is anything barring prosecution of crimes he committed in office once he had left. There was a lot of chatter about how if Trump won re-election that the statute of limitations would run out on certain crimes (like the Michael Cohen hush money case where Trump is an un-indicted co-conspirator). That point is moor now.
Plus the Constitution says that impeachment does not preclude criminal prosecution later. That strongly suggests that the president is not immune to prosecution for crimes committed while in office.
Not bold at all. In Federal cases, he definitely is. Since at least the AG of NY seems to think he is, since she was waiting until he got out of office, there’s her legal opinion for NY.
It may not be law, but a simple issue of what a sitting president can do- for example arresting the AG of the state that brings charges against him.
In any case, it isnt generally done. No sitting President has ever been arrested, with the possible exception of a $20 speeding ticket for Grant.
And I doubt if GA will do so. Even tho indeed GA did vote for Biden it is still quite red in most state offices.
Would it though? Statute of limitations applies if someone is able to be arrested, and the authorities just don’t bother.
If someone is wanted for a crime, and moves to a non-extraditable country, then the clock is not ticking on it. I don’t know that it is the same for the President, but if the office shields him from arrest, then it seems as though it should act similarly.
They may have to file charges before the time is up, but they wouldn’t have to actually detain or try him while he is essentially in non-extraditable territory.
I do think that a state would have a hard time actually arresting a sitting president.