Quote:
Originally Posted by mangamuscle
Since atm the scholars conclusion is that a sitting president can't be prosecuted, this is a catch-22 situation where they will not make a POTUS stand trial when in or out of office. IMO (I am not a lawyer) the correct thing would have been to let the case go forward to set a precedent. What I see happening here is that in the future the SCOTUS might decide to go forward if said president is not of their liking (as in, justice with eyes wide open, not blind at all).
|
Here's a lawyer's opinion, then:
And it makes sense: you sue to achieve some result. Since the plaintiffs asked for the courts to stop Trump abusing his position as POTUS, and he already lost the ability to do that, there isn't any point in continuing things.
Of course, there
ought to be some way to punish him for all the shit he pulled, including the profiteering. I'm not sure there's one, though. But then, I'm not a lawyer either.
In better news: