My own view about the nature of the question presented is that this is actually a *good* sign for those who want to see Trump prosecuted, because even *if* the Court holds that the official acts alleged in the indictment are protected by immunity (and I think that's unlikely), there are some unofficial acts in the indictment as well--on …
My own view about the nature of the question presented is that this is actually a *good* sign for those who want to see Trump prosecuted, because even *if* the Court holds that the official acts alleged in the indictment are protected by immunity (and I think that's unlikely), there are some unofficial acts in the indictment as well--on which the trial could go forward even in the face of a ruling recognizing at least some immunity.
My own view about the nature of the question presented is that this is actually a *good* sign for those who want to see Trump prosecuted, because even *if* the Court holds that the official acts alleged in the indictment are protected by immunity (and I think that's unlikely), there are some unofficial acts in the indictment as well--on which the trial could go forward even in the face of a ruling recognizing at least some immunity.
Thanks for posting out the the positive side. As Keithustus asked below: What were the "unofficial" acts referenced in the indictments?
Haven't read the indictment carefully....does it clearly delineate which acts are official and which were...political?
Aren't most of a president’s official acts protected by immunity, because ... floodgates?