> (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32
For example, from my understanding this means that Nixon's tapes could never have been used in any form in a criminal trial regarding Nixon's actions.
In today's political environment I don't see an impeachment ever succeeding unless the opposing party has a super-majority in the US Senate.
It has been 3 years and 6 months since Trumps election interference with essentially no progress being made in the courts.
If and when Trump gets elected how long do you think it will take the Supreme Court to differentiate between an 'official' act and a 'non-official' act when Trump acts illegally in 2025?
Throw in the recent ruling increasing the difficulty of proving bribery and things are looking grim ( IMHO ).
I have no desire to read something that starts with the premise that evangelical Christianity is true or read an analysis that accepts that premise from the start.
For example, from my understanding this means that Nixon's tapes could never have been used in any form in a criminal trial regarding Nixon's actions.
In today's political environment I don't see an impeachment ever succeeding unless the opposing party has a super-majority in the US Senate.