I appeared on Gray TV today to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling today in favor of Donald Trump on immunity and the likely impact of that decision on each of the four pending prosecutions of Former President Trump.
www.graydc.com/2024/07/01/s...
Which is it? Can you use official acts as evidence or not?
This footnote reads like "ah, shit, uhhh, pretend I wrote a different, more subtle standard in the body"
It's all sort of "academic", because at the end of the day, any decisions made under this new doctrine will come back to this same court unless we get a lucky break in the next year or two.
And at least 5 votes have made it clear where their sympathies lie and what they're willing to do.
Even if it were, the majority opinion is not telling other actors how to indict a former president while passing constitutional muster. It's saying that you probably can't indict a former president, but whether your attempt is good enough is up to them.
I'd say it slightly differently. SCOTUS just empowered every US President to act like a dictator, without fear of criminal sanction. President Biden appears *highly unlikely* to exercise such powers. If FPOTUS returns to office, he has a runway to impose a fascist state.
I suspect they're also confident that Democrats in the Senate wouldn't just go along with outrageous law breaking by Biden, while R's have already demonstrated that impeachment isn't on the table for FPOTUS
I thought the presidential power of pardon already so empowered every US president.
Even if one argued that self-pardons are invalid, which branch of government can stop that?
