Snyder v. U.S., No. 23-108 [Arg: 4.15.2024]

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks…..
This case is hilarious even bizarre in the absurd debate as to how the federal government defines the word “corruptly”, in it’s prosecution determinations.
It affects all the Trump cases, and the Atlanta case, where he as President (the chief law enforcement officer of the USA) was insisting state and local governments follow federal law.
As well, as his rights on the Presidential Records Act, and Electoral Count Act.

Enjoy - efd

Snyder v. U.S., No. 23-108 [Arg: 4.15.2024]

Issue(s): Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions. Particularly debating the word “corruptly” as defined by the Biden DOJ.

The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.