The smart money is on this going nowhere.
IMO this might end up meaning ex-presidents can only be prosecuted by the congress just to prevent a repetition.
Because the activist lawfare begun in the sixties has resulted in the supreme court reversing on lawfare cases and ending the practice – most notably on abortion and 2nd amendment. We’ve seen them end bureaucratic lawfare with constraints on regulators ending the managerial state. And now they have their sights set on lawfare in political prosecutions. I mean, I’m pretty confident that I’m not the only person thinking of the best Amicus Brief to submit to the court. And the argument I would make is merely the one outlined here. And as far as I know it’s a slam dunk for the court.
Reply addressees: @mandisuzanne3 @GimelAnthony @crcwilkinson @JesseBWatters @dbongino
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-05 04:18:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643468218604847105
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1643465839360835584
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
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.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1643465839360835584
Leave a Reply