The ‘experts’ are making the case that the narrower interpretation in NY is rele

The ‘experts’ are making the case that the narrower interpretation in NY is relevant, and that it’s meaningful. I am, and others will, make the case that its not a violation under federal and supreme court interpretation, and that it’s not meaningful. Why? Because it breaks the federal prohibition on prosecution of presidents unless for high crimes. Why? To prevent political prosecutions.
So this case will be interesting in that it attempts to circumvent federal constraints on political prosecution of presidents past and present.
In other words we should not have tolerated the prosecution of Clinton for his nonsense, nor trump for his nonsense. These are not high crimes.