> Christina Bobb, the Trump attorney who was just indicted in the Arizona fake elector scheme, was recently named as a senior counsel for "election integrity" for the Republican National Committee.
> The court’s three liberal justices appeared skeptical of the arguments brought by John Sauer, Trump’s attorney, but at least some of the six conservatives on the bench seemed open to his requests.
> ... But I wonder whether some of it might also be mitigated by the fact that existing administrations have a self interest in protecting the presidency, that they understand that if they go after the former guy, soon, they’re going to be the former guy and they will have created precedent, that will be problematic.
One of Trumps claims has been that a president can only be tried for something after being impeached by the house and convicted by the senate even though they said the opposite in the senate trial
I think it boils down to should they have immunity based on doing official/legal parts of their job or should they get immunity even if they violate the law/constitution.
I get it there should be some sort of immunity, at least according to the conservative justices. But it seems it is very difficult to distinguish which is official and which is private. That might be naive but it is what it is.
@JoeW exactly. But it sounds like official. Why should president get immunity even in "official" acts too? Shouldn't he be able to go under the scanner without getting any benefit of doubt in the guise of "official"? Seems pretty one-sided.
