"The law does not work if it is used merely as a tool to protect one man. "
Sadly, this has been largely the right-wing's majority thrust in re: tRump. Some of the Court's questioning bordered on sheer farce, e.g., J. Kavanaugh and his business about "clear statements", and if a law doesn't specifically include the president - or ex-presi…
"The law does not work if it is used merely as a tool to protect one man. "
Sadly, this has been largely the right-wing's majority thrust in re: tRump. Some of the Court's questioning bordered on sheer farce, e.g., J. Kavanaugh and his business about "clear statements", and if a law doesn't specifically include the president - or ex-president, can it be applied to that person? But, ultimately, we WILL be getting an order for remand to the district court in order to sort the "official" v "private" actions comprising the original indictment.
Delay-delay-delay wins yet again, as in FL docs case and the train-wreck that the GA case has become.
Parenthetically, why was there citations to *Blassingame*, a civil suit? Did "official" v "private" acts surface there in arguments or in the (appellate) decision itself?
"The law does not work if it is used merely as a tool to protect one man. "
Sadly, this has been largely the right-wing's majority thrust in re: tRump. Some of the Court's questioning bordered on sheer farce, e.g., J. Kavanaugh and his business about "clear statements", and if a law doesn't specifically include the president - or ex-president, can it be applied to that person? But, ultimately, we WILL be getting an order for remand to the district court in order to sort the "official" v "private" actions comprising the original indictment.
Delay-delay-delay wins yet again, as in FL docs case and the train-wreck that the GA case has become.
Parenthetically, why was there citations to *Blassingame*, a civil suit? Did "official" v "private" acts surface there in arguments or in the (appellate) decision itself?