|
Peter Sagal@petersagal.bsky.social |
Thank you. But I’m trying to figure out that that case would look like. You’d have to charge a President with a crime. A judge would then throw it out, that’s appealed to SCOTUS, which overturns Trump vs US. But for that to happen, you’d need a) Dem DOJ and b) a post Biden II GOP POTUS who crimes.
4 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Cait
@caitesq.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I think that’s basically right. It’s unlikely to happen. It’s why you don’t see reversals of reviled opinions that arise from unusual facts, like Korematsu. (Roberts claimed to reverse that in Trump v. Hawaii, but...)
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Yechiel ⍼ יחיאל
@yechiel.me
[ View ] |
Why can't it be the same POTUS (assuming he hasn't kicked the bucket yet)? There's still plenty to investigate and indict on.
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Sean McKeown
@sifuabs.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Jack Smith asks the newly reconstituted Supreme Court to re-rule on the same issue in the same case but get a different result.
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Kaigen
@kaigen.bsky.social
[ View ] |
IANAL, but I've been seeing something about how the immunity also protects official acts from being entered into evidence, which might also provide a mechanism? Someone else crimes, a presidential act has bearing as evidence, the fight over whether it is admissible goes up the chain?
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes