The conflict is between the former and current president, not between the branches.
Issue: So what is the role of the courts?
Can the court overrule the incumbent president on behalf of a former president?
Here we get these hypotheticals. What if four former presidents disagree with the incumbent president. (Implication: What if the current president is totally off his rocker?)
Answer: There is still no clash between the branches.
What if instead of repeating: "there've been no consequences," everyone did:
"OMG, the Trump Org has been INDICTED for FRAUD!
And the GJ is still hearing evidence."
Repeat a million times. Let it sink into the public consciousness. ("Her emails")
Instead of minimizing it.
These things puff Trump up and help his Strongman image:
🔹There are never any consequences!
🔹He gets away with everything"
🔹Yeah, okay, but what about . . . ?
These guys ⤵️LOVE when you say that.
("no consequences" also isn't true)
2/
The right-wing understands how to do that. They take something that wasn't a crime ("her emails") and repeat it over and over. Mainstream media picks it up. Pretty soon even people who don't know better start thinking HRC was a crook.
Some of this comes from the nature of social media.
If you missed the video Timothy Snyder posted yesterday, please see it. In the second Tweet, I linked to the thread in which I tackled the same issues before seeing his video.