Hi Laura. Thanks for your note. You are correct, everything related to Jeffrey Clark was taken out of the revised indictment. I also am not convinced that the Trump-Pence conversations will be allowed as evidence under the Supreme Court's immunity ruling - which I should parenthetically note is a real travesty. I don't think Nixon could have been investigated for Watergate using this ruling.
Hi Laura. Thanks for your note. You are correct, everything related to Jeffrey Clark was taken out of the revised indictment. I also am not convinced that the Trump-Pence conversations will be allowed as evidence under the Supreme Court's immunity ruling - which I should parenthetically note is a real travesty. I don't think Nixon could have been investigated for Watergate using this ruling.
Maybe Jack Smith knows the judge will rule many of the Pence details were official acts, but he wanted to get the information into the public domain before the election.
Agree, it is a travesty and contrary to a plain reading of the Constitution. The framers included legislative immunity and certainly could have spelled out immunity for the president if they had wanted to do so.
Hi Laura. Thanks for your note. You are correct, everything related to Jeffrey Clark was taken out of the revised indictment. I also am not convinced that the Trump-Pence conversations will be allowed as evidence under the Supreme Court's immunity ruling - which I should parenthetically note is a real travesty. I don't think Nixon could have been investigated for Watergate using this ruling.
Maybe Jack Smith knows the judge will rule many of the Pence details were official acts, but he wanted to get the information into the public domain before the election.
Agree, it is a travesty and contrary to a plain reading of the Constitution. The framers included legislative immunity and certainly could have spelled out immunity for the president if they had wanted to do so.