Here he is, yet again, "Individual-1", making dual appearances out of the Dick Nixon playbook: Unindicted co-conspirator! Two indictments, two states, and *ecce homo*.
Here he is, yet again, "Individual-1", making dual appearances out of the Dick Nixon playbook: Unindicted co-conspirator! Two indictments, two states, and *ecce homo*.
Also, regarding tRump's "unindicted co-conspirator" status, legal commentators are asking, "Why?" Why isn't tRump named as an active co-conspirator and joined to the indictment? Well, from today's SCOTUS hearing on the presidential immunity question, there was mention of *state and local* prosecution of a former president, and whether those prosecutions have more of an "immunity" argument than would *federal* prosecution. Thus, tRump's claim for immunity in the GA trial - not a subject of today's Court hearing, but indirectly so - may eventually surface in his favor, given the apparent skepticism by the right-wing Justices toward the DC case, where "official acts" seem to have great latitude, and "fear of unjust prosecution" of ex-presidents by entities other than the feds was offered up as a reason for "partial" or "qualified" immunity.
Why indict at the state level if a SCOTUS majority has or would grant immunity from such a prosecution?
Here he is, yet again, "Individual-1", making dual appearances out of the Dick Nixon playbook: Unindicted co-conspirator! Two indictments, two states, and *ecce homo*.
Bad look, tRump.
Also, regarding tRump's "unindicted co-conspirator" status, legal commentators are asking, "Why?" Why isn't tRump named as an active co-conspirator and joined to the indictment? Well, from today's SCOTUS hearing on the presidential immunity question, there was mention of *state and local* prosecution of a former president, and whether those prosecutions have more of an "immunity" argument than would *federal* prosecution. Thus, tRump's claim for immunity in the GA trial - not a subject of today's Court hearing, but indirectly so - may eventually surface in his favor, given the apparent skepticism by the right-wing Justices toward the DC case, where "official acts" seem to have great latitude, and "fear of unjust prosecution" of ex-presidents by entities other than the feds was offered up as a reason for "partial" or "qualified" immunity.
Why indict at the state level if a SCOTUS majority has or would grant immunity from such a prosecution?