I wonder if they can still use it as a defense because it was in effect when they did it (because you can't legally be charged with a crime if you did it before it was illegal)?
I don't think it would only apply to crimes after the supreme court ruling, it states that the agencies no longer has cart blanche authority to interpret their laws when it's ambiguous. So Fauci won't be able to say i was operating under section code blah blah blah and you need throw the case out in court.
I wonder if they can still use it as a defense because it was in effect when they did it (because you can't legally be charged with a crime if you did it before it was illegal)?
I don't think it would only apply to crimes after the supreme court ruling, it states that the agencies no longer has cart blanche authority to interpret their laws when it's ambiguous. So Fauci won't be able to say i was operating under section code blah blah blah and you need throw the case out in court.
But wouldn't that mean that, for example, Fauci still did have that legal authority when he did all of it?
I think the ambiguity is the key, the law would need to be direct.
I think if they
KNOWINGLY
Committed crimes, going against the spirit of the law they can be held accountable.