Hopefully, if someone commits a crime they should be charged, and novel trials may improve justice by setting precedent through transparent jury trial instead of closed doors scotus. If you charge someone without sufficient evidence you should be open to a countersuit. Based on oral arguments it sounds like they are defining where ‘in the line of duty’ ends and ‘actions of some guy who also has a job as president’ begins. Asking for 11,780 votes pretty obviously falls outside of the bounds of the job and it shouldn’t take months to rule on that.
Hopefully, if someone commits a crime they should be charged, and novel trials may improve justice by setting precedent through transparent jury trial instead of closed doors scotus. If you charge someone without sufficient evidence you should be open to a countersuit. Based on oral arguments it sounds like they are defining where ‘in the line of duty’ ends and ‘actions of some guy who also has a job as president’ begins. Asking for 11,780 votes pretty obviously falls outside of the bounds of the job and it shouldn’t take months to rule on that.