Dem president commits multiple crimes during their term(s), which wouldn’t be prosecuted because of the OLC memo against prosecuting sitting presidents, a long time policy not connected to the SCOTUS ruling on immunity.
Then, after leaving office, the next president, Dem or republican, would have to have an AG willing to investigate and prosecute the former president.
Then, if the former Dem president were indicted for any alleged crimes committed while in office, they could assert immunity under the 2024 Roberts court decision.
Then, if the judge upheld the former president’s claim of immunity,the AG could 1) either go to court to get the ruling overturned, or 2) proceed to a hearing to determine if any of the crimes were official acts, and prosecute those that weren’t.
Of course, this potential prosecution could be 11 or more years down the road, and the court could look very different by that time.
On top of that, it is conceivable that, during the Dem president’s term, a courageous congress could kill the filibuster, expand the court, and the Dem president could pack the court with his nominees. Congress could then pass laws asserting a president does NOT have immunity for acts committed while in office. If that law was challenged, the new SCOTUS could reverse the Roberts court immunity ruling, freeing the current Dem AG to prosecute Trump for crimes committed during his second term. Congress wouldn’t even have to pass a law- the AG could just prosecute, and appeal the lower court immunity rulings all the way to the new SCOTUS.
That’s just one of the many reason why it is critical in both 2026 and 2028, that Dem only nominate candidates for senate who are willing to kill the filibuster and expand the court.
= new reply since forum marked as read
