or lack of understanding. If it is a “guideline” why do you need a rule change? Only because there is no precedent? Individual #1 and his business’ are proven to be corrupt and warranted to receive indictments in any other situation outside of him being president. The law should understandably follow the same course. Is it only to protect the actions of indictment?

And test the legality of the question?

Although there are three equal branches of Government, only one is commissioned to write the laws. One is commissioned to execute the laws and one is commissioned to judge the legality of the law.

How would the Supreme Court rule?

since there is only a “guideline” that action alone by presenting it to the SC for ruling would settle the argument, hopefully. The indictment would have to have ironclad proof of criminality.

I say pick one charge that’s obvious in its proof and go from there. Once one is ok’d the rest will cascade.

Do "rules changes" require approval in the other House of the Legislature? Or are they independent from the "rules" the House chooses to make for themselves?

or was there also mention of extending the statute of limitations? As in, time a president is in office does not count against the statute-of-limitations clock.