Its being set up like trump needs it to happen but i think im expecting it to go the other way. 90-100m people are going to vote for trump right so our voice will be heard. Dont we need the supreme court to rule against immunity? Then what happens to trump besides our voice nullifying all these sham trials? Is he found not guilty on everything regardless? Thats how i see it going anyway
Comments (9)
sorted by:
I don't think we necessarily need them to rule against immunity. Many of the crimes committed by past administrations were committed after they left office, or as in Biden and many other's cases long before they got to office.
I don't know if the statute of limitations stops prosecution for treason.
This is where I am. What if......lol....Biden committed election fraud before he was "elected". Bam bam continued his illegal spying when he was out of office as well as whatever the EO on human trafficking states regarding who can be indicted and have their toys confiscated.
The SC will likely chip away at blanket immunity, thereby opening the door to prosecute former presidential office-holders.
I think this is important to fogure out because its the crux everhthing rests on
They might rule against immunity, but make an exception as a "grandfather clause," to exclude past presidents from the new ruling. If a president had immunity at the time of an alleged crime, then their immunity would stand, but the new ruling would apply to future presidents.
I am not suggesting that is what the SCOTUS would, or should do, only suggesting that I think that could be an option.
I think they’ll rule against immunity. Then another round of lawsuits that go nowhere for Teflon Don. Then Trump gets back in and they’re all fucked with no immunity.
Were there any Q posts related to this question?
I dont think so thats why im curious. I really do feel like there is SO muvh riding on this single decision. But the thing is that i can see how it could go either way and work