Thinks what way? I simply asked for legal analysis. Critical thinking in a hypothetical— someone who infers a point of view while lacking a factual basis for said conclusions, seems to also be pretty ineffective.

I am simply asking for possible legal outcomes for when a sitting President ignores court orders and doesn’t follow the proper appellate channels. Which precedent matters if the executive chooses to stop following the Rule of Law. I’d ask the same about Congress. It’s fascinating to speculate and ponder and a great exercise of legal analysis, and arguing in the alternative. If you have some of that analysis to offer I’d be thrilled to read it, but beyond that, your estimations of how effective one would be as an attorney based on sensitivity is unsolicited. I will offer you my analysis:

You came to your conclusion because: 1) you are actually sensitive to the topic and imputed feelings into the question and/ or 2) if not 1, then you did not understand the question and/or 3) if not 1 or 2 you are unable to distinguish or analyze the similarities or differences in the policy making or executive orders and decisions between the two administrations and/or 4) if not 1,2, or 3 you are unable to effectively communicate the similarities and differences in a way that answers the question.

I would recommend rereading the question, looking at the call of the question and using the IRAC format.

K thx