|
Joshua J. Friedman@joshuajfriedman.com |
Uh, Roberts appears to say that you can't even use *evidence* related to a president's official acts when you're prosecuting him for unofficial acts?
11 replies 26 reposts 108 likes
|
Joshua J. Friedman@joshuajfriedman.com |
Uh, Roberts appears to say that you can't even use *evidence* related to a president's official acts when you're prosecuting him for unofficial acts?
11 replies 26 reposts 108 likes
|
Wendell B
@wndlb.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Pence is no longer a witness. And the whole Jeffrey Clark thing was kosher.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Tiffany (parentheses overuser)
@tiffanyclay.dev
[ View ] |
Yup. That’s what the pundits on MSNBC have said about that passage
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Caleb Crain
@calebcrain.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Sotomayor: "Finally, the majority declares that evidence con- cerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him."
0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
Chair of the Sewer Maintenance Board
@sidewalkslam.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Because John Roberts is a fully bought and paid for piece of human shit who hates working Americans and thinks we all must be completely subject to the whims of him and his friends
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Joshua J. Friedman
@joshuajfriedman.com
[ View ] |
Hmmm, the majority opinion says, in response to criticism, that *of course* you can point to the president's official public acts in a trial; you just can't "admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself." (Sotomayor calls this "nonsensical")
6 replies 10 reposts 97 likes
|
amdiamanti
@amdiamanti.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This was written with surgical precision to get the just about the whole case tossed under the guise of “well we said you can prosecute him for some stuff, too bad you can’t prove it.”
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
Lindsey Rosenthal
@eventsforgood.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Yes, this is the part that Barrett disagreed with (and why she only partially concurred).
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
@jiminnh.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The morass this decision has created will haunt this country for decades. And it's a green light for Trump to prosecute Biden if he wins. And that's why our task remains exactly as it was at 9:59 AM. We have to stop Trump at the ballot box. There is no other choice.
0 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
Literate Lawyer
@therealsec.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The “intended effect” is to shield Trump and install him as dictator.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Howie from Maryland 🦀
@hocohowie.bsky.social
[ View ] |
That's what you call a tell.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
@unorlis.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Genuine question, how can Biden abuse this? I know he won't but please do something just to fuck the court up, I am so upset
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes