was indicted in federal cour in 1973. and that case, that spiro agne case, did have some remarkable similarities to the reported charges against mr. trum today. for example, in vice spiro agnew s case they charged hi with taking illicit payments while he was in the whit house. in trump s case, it s believed that the charges against him include him making illicit payments while he was in the white house. and while trump and agnew were both enormously polarizing and aggressive and very hard right politicians, each of which - each of them did some enormous controversial, maybe eve arguably illegal things whil in office. ultimately, what they were bot charged with were things tha were about being venal and petty and they were financia charges, but in a very small change sort of way i mean, trump appears to b facing charges having to d with secret payments he wa trying to hi to an adult fil
and that is just the bare fact of it. so, anybody who tells you that this prosecution in new york i to somehow stop trump from running for president again that s horse hockey. it really isn t that and the reason you can tell it is and that is because the reason this prosecution went a badly for him as it possibly could, it would not block hi from running for president but go back to the last time something like this happened it is true that we have neve indicted a former u.s. president before but we did indict a former u s. vice president, who had onl been out of office for about two minutes, literally, when h was indicted in federal cour in 1973. and that case, that spiro agne case, did have some remarkable similarities to the reported charges against mr. trum today. for example, in vice spiro agnew s case they charged hi with taking illicit payments while he was in the whit house. in trump s case, it s believed
The high court’s ruling severely diminishes opportunities for inmates to claim ineffective assistance of counsel even if attorneys failed to represent their clients properly.