Can they rule in favor of presidential immunity without setting precedent? I’m not an attorney, but I’m under the impression that the ruling can be used in future defense of presidential wrongdoing.
Their ruling would have to be incredibly narrow and focused exclusively on Trump’s crimes in order to not apply to any other presidents, unless they commit the same crimes as detailed in the ruling.
Can they rule in favor of presidential immunity without setting precedent? I’m not an attorney, but I’m under the impression that the ruling can be used in future defense of presidential wrongdoing.
Their ruling would have to be incredibly narrow and focused exclusively on Trump’s crimes in order to not apply to any other presidents, unless they commit the same crimes as detailed in the ruling.
given the way they have been ruling lately, and given the schedule, this is what I’m expecting.
I see. So it’s unlikely to see exclusivity without exceptional bias, and more likely will be applicable to future presidents if passed?