The hypotheticals that were being presented during arguments were not very hypothetical at all. Mostly all of these things happened in our countrys history recently. It seems as if we do not want immunity and even through they seem to be fighting for it that the stage is being set for other prosecutions. Now it can still be argued that presidents need immunity for various reasons such as national security. What do yall think. Do we need immunity for the executive? Is the Q plan to have immunity off the table because it seems ambivalent
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Agree that it feels like in reality Trump is arguing against immunity.
Most important though is simply defining the terms of conflict. When does immunity apply? Get it defined and understood by the public.
Then white hats will prosecute the former presidents in line with that standard. Doesn't really matter what SC decides. Plenty of valid interpretations.