Just started reading the immunity opinion and it is *so* striking how Roberts emphasizes this is the first time a former president has been criminally prosecuted, addressing it very antiseptically and without reference to the first time a president tried to block the peaceful transfer of power.
Again, Roberts majority has everything upside down; yes, we do want to restrain presidents from committing crimes, and have fear of prosecution for those crimes
Look, these SCOTUS justices have to know that there COULD be a thing that the POTUS does to/with VPOTUS that is ILLEGAL and maybe it has to do with the very functioning of democracy itself but nevertheless
This is unreal. We're sending it back to the trial court to figure out if prosecuting FPOTUS for pressuring the VPOTUS to refuse to do his constitutional duty to carry out the peaceful transfer of power would actually interfere with the functions of the executive branch????
SCOTUS would not decide whether fake electors scheme fell outside Trump's official presidential duties, sent it back for likely protracted fact-finding by the trial court. The chin-stroking that maybe this scheme based on lies and conspiracy theories was part of presidential duties--unbelievable.
So in the entirety of the universe the one person incapable of employing executive authority for corrupt purposes is the President of the United States or does this actually apply to any executive authority anywhere?
It's very suspicious, because it basically means, "when we choose the president is liable, then he will be," keeping their powder dry for when it's a president they disagree with being charged for something they figure is worth it.
