Teri Kanefield on Nostr: While saying that this is an issue of first impression, the decision is constantly ...
While saying that this is an issue of first impression, the decision is constantly citing Supreme Court precedence and rulings. (The hope of course is that SCOTUS declines to hear the case or, if it does, declines to delay the trial.)
Screenshot #1: The court cites SCOTUS to debunk the "but he was the PRESIDENT" argument.
Screenshot #2: The idea here is: SCOTUS said a president is not immune from responding to a criminal subpoena why would he be immune from criminal indictment?
2/
Published at
2024-02-06 15:37:25Event JSON
{
"id": "77999f8e25336f98c8fdc57e40c285287d9aeb5cf787fdefecda2f51a47a6c52",
"pubkey": "e78d730a6d4de3f0674813838f1bc1d808298edb09fa93414e8d7e92545a1a8a",
"created_at": 1707233845,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"38fa0fb3a3d82aa03e22a6e9dd6ee65ec1449a1ad072cdf05507ae4980a6bfd1",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://mastodon.social/users/Teri_Kanefield/statuses/111885277302376178",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "While saying that this is an issue of first impression, the decision is constantly citing Supreme Court precedence and rulings. (The hope of course is that SCOTUS declines to hear the case or, if it does, declines to delay the trial.)\n\nScreenshot #1: The court cites SCOTUS to debunk the \"but he was the PRESIDENT\" argument. \n\nScreenshot #2: The idea here is: SCOTUS said a president is not immune from responding to a criminal subpoena why would he be immune from criminal indictment? \n\n2/\n\nhttps://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/885/261/637/800/906/original/f8c10d4887a65878.png\n\nhttps://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/111/885/268/801/989/561/original/7e45ece247af3084.png",
"sig": "37dc4a11b58f0e885872c0e38509c451d37b65a3458b6307e6b351a357aee6aaf894a0784d549ce5ae68b3833508202c6d525afc381e61e81bb1b45d5ea8e80e"
}
