Because the judge in the case warned her about her making public statements about the case. That’s the reason. I’m sorry you aren’t keeping up on the facts of the trial or just don’t care, but some of us want to see her win it and for the win to survive all appeals.
The judge in the case warned her about her making public statements about the case. That’s the reason. I’m sorry you aren’t keeping up on the facts of the trial or just don’t care, but some of us want to see her win it and for the win to survive all appeals.
Seriously though maybe she should stop talking about this case publicly.
Nobody asked you to want to vote for him, but if you truly believe Trump is worse, you have to do it anyway if you care about what happens next to your country.
That is a choice to support the only insurrectionist in the race, which is probably the point of your comment to begin with.
Just not in a CPD-moderated forum.
Not a Supreme Court case. Why are you getting upvotes?
That case was about executive privilege, not criminal statutes.
If the question isn’t novel then please cite Supreme Court cases that have dealt with the question of executive immunity from criminal cases or just do what seems to be impossible on the internet: admit you’re wrong.
No one is denying that this may be an open-and-shut case but the Supreme Court has never taken up the question so…. it’s novel.
I disagree. I think this question is novel enough that it needs Supreme Court review, not merely letting a lower court ruling stand. That opinion needs to come out at light speed though.
Because the judge in the case warned her about her making public statements about it. That’s the reason. I’m sorry you aren’t keeping up on the facts of the trial or just don’t care, but some of us want to see her win it and for the win to survive all appeals. Enjoy your upvotes though.