There is ample evidence to show he was defeated. The court ruled that he has full immunity on any presidential act. Now, guess what he's going to argue? Anything he does is a presidential act. This is a guy who stole classified docs and discussed the intricacies of nuclear subs with foreign leaders.
Ample evidence to show he was defeated? Just, what? You should explain yourself further when you say stuff like that. Sure, he can argue everything he does is a presidential act, (which require less scrutiny from the courts because of the balance of power, executive branch), but what you are...
missing there - on purpose - is that a court can still determine whether that's actually the case or not. We know from the constitution and jurisprudence what the responsibilities and domain of the presidency are, obviously that doesn't include every single action one could possibly take.
And before you get angry that that applies to Trump, the same rules will apply to a future Democrat president.
It is ironic that they are giving a Democratic President unlimited power, but that's because they don't think there won't ever be one again. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJR5...
Evidence: I will summarize, statistically the 2024 election has implausible outcomes, never seen before. www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk1A...