https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/01/supreme-court-trump-immunity-claim-decision-updates#top-of-blog
Anyone care to take a stab at explaining why the ruling doesn't simply kick the can down the road a bit? I mean, how could (say) hiding secret documents, riot incitation at a campaign event, etc. be considered official acts of the Office of the President? I suppose I can see some of the evidence being thrown out, like claims about POTUS not getting involved in protecting the Capitol building. But is this ruling really that damaging to the prosecution's case? -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
