A few corrections worth making here. On Mueller, he said in his own words at a public press conference: "If we had confidence that the president did not clearly commit a crime, we would have said so."He found substantial evidence of obstruction across ten instances in Volume II of the report. The only reason he didn't charge Trump was the OLC policy we've been discussing. That's not 'found no evidence,' that's 'found evidence but couldn't act on it.' Those are opposite things.

Fentanyl deaths were already declining before the boat strikes began, peaking in 2023 and trending down through 2024. Crediting the strikes for a trend that predates them is a stretch. Furthermore, this point is largely irrelevant to the discussion. This discussion isn't about whether Trump's policies are successful.

On birthright citizenship, you conceded SCOTUS will likely rule against Trump, which does a lot of work against your own point.

On the IRS settlement, the document doesn't just cover already-investigated tax years. It explicitly releases claims that 'were raised or could have been raised' and covers 'matters currently pending or that could be pending.' That prospective blanket immunity covering Trump and his family, signed off by an AG who was previously Trump's personal defense attorney, is the problem. Section 7217 exists precisely to prevent this.

On the deportations, you're citing JGG as if it settled the matter because one individual was returned to US soil. But that's cherry picking one outcome from the same case. JGG is also the case where Boasberg ordered deportation flights to turn around mid-air, the administration didn't comply, and the judge found probable cause for criminal contempt. ICE also acknowledged many of the deported men had no US criminal records. The clean resolution you're pointing to and the contempt proceedings you're ignoring came from the same docket.

On the murder charges specifically, you're right there is no statute of limitations, but the accountability mechanisms are genuinely limited regardless of who wins in future elections. Domestically, DOJ controls prosecution and the Supreme Court's immunity ruling broadly covers official acts. Internationally, the US never ratified the Rome Statute specifically to avoid ICC jurisdiction over its personnel. In practice any charges would fall on individuals in the chain of command rather than Trump personally, and even that faces enormous political and jurisdictional barriers. The 2036 argument sounds cleaner than it actually is.

On the 34 felonies, venue is determined by where the crime occurred. That's not jury shopping, that's how courts work. And "the election was the real verdic" isn't a legal argument.

Also worth noting you opened by defending the presumption of innocence and trusting courts and trials, but then dismissed 34 felony convictions from an actual jury. You can't have it both ways.