That's true. But Congress could also.

3. Again, for the President, quite likely to require a constitutional amendment given the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision.

This item 1 would also need a Constitutional Amendment. Congress can't currently have executive power which includes the power to prosecute. You could restore the old independent counsel statute which might still be constitutional.

This doesn't seem supported by the international comparisons.

He's really not. He sort of wants to be but he isn't pulling it off and it looks like he won't. But this is now part of the Republican party and unless either that changes or the Dems seriously commit to reducing Presidential power some Republican will succeed at becoming a fascist dictator.

I read it. It is very long but quite good.

Yes. Trump will clearly not be a fascist dictator but a President Vance in 2028 may be a very different story.

Pretty fundamentally.

Nope. You really are grossly underestimating how bad and unnecessary Dredd Scott was.

Not really. It's been inherent in the Presidency for a long time; it's not that different from things Nixon did.

It works both ways. The police aren't going to shoot ICE agents. And legally police trying to arrest ICE agents performing their duties are committing a federal crime, while the ICE agents refusing to be arrested are probably acting lawfully.

I didn't say they get to cop out.

I think they'd have to provide some evidence. I think the answer to your second question is no but I am not certain of that.

It is my understanding that this may be the case. I'd think violating official policy would make it hard for him to win dismissal. But if DHS says "we informally reversed the policy" I am not sure how much weight the policy holds.

The problem they will really face is that the ICE employee will remove the case to federal court and then move to dismiss the prosecution on the ground that his shooting of Ms. Good was authorized under Federal law and he reasonably thought his actions justifiable.

They do have to actually conduct an analysis and investigation first so it would take somewhat longer.

Square one implies that we are trying to get somewhere. Where are we going here?

Alright, he did call for Congress to be involved but didn't note that the way Trump acted here was potentially illegal.

What in his statement do you object to? He correctly notes that Maduro is illegitimate, we should support the democratically elected leader of Venezuela, it's important to have a plan for what comes next and what Trump did was illegal.