What part of the ruling did they not understand?

[Jolly]

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/justice-department-looks-ways-continue-january-6-cases-after-supreme

[Mik]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-supreme-court-just-did-biden-a-huge-favor-by-giving-trump-immunity/ar-BB1pg3kL?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=13e52afa136145e28f9714537043cbde&ei=11

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly The court didn’t invalidate the law just raised the evidentiary bar.

Lots of these guys will get retried.

[LuFins Dad]

@Mik said in What part of the ruling did they not understand?:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-supreme-court-just-did-biden-a-huge-favor-by-giving-trump-immunity/ar-BB1pg3kL?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=13e52afa136145e28f9714537043cbde&ei=11

I really don’t get the wailing and gnashing of teeth over this. This is not a new concept. All the court did was affirm that of a President did break laws in the course of his duty they have immunity. If the law breaking wasn’t in the course of their duty, they aren’t. And it’s for the lower courts to decide whether the action was in the course of duty.

[Mik]

Yes, but the wildass speculation/end-of-the-world/now-the-president-is-a-king rhetoric is flying.

[Jolly]

@jon-nyc said in What part of the ruling did they not understand?:

@Jolly The court didn’t invalidate the law just raised the evidentiary bar.

Lots of these guys will get retried.

Maybe.

At this point, I think we have bigger fish to fry.