“Given the importance of the trial schedule, the key practical question is whether the court focuses solely on Trump’s case or endorses immunity in other instances. Smith’s gambit is a fallback that would let the court order the trial to proceed even if its opinion extends to broader principles of immunity.”
I wouldn’t even go that far. He’s innocent until proven guilty, just like anyone else. Bail exists for a good reason, as it has for centuries. You pay a deposit that makes it worth your while to come back for trial, and you stay out of jail in the meantime. Do that, and you get your money back. If you don’t, that money is forfeit.
What we’re seeing is how it should work for anyone accused of (but not yet found guilty of) a crime. If there are people unable to afford it or whatever, that should be addressed - it is in our constitution, after all.
Then when he’s convicted, lock him up like anyone else.
Bail is allowed for folks who are not likely to reoffend/commit other crimes while they wait for trial. I would say he is likely to reoffend/commit other crimes. So, bail should not have been offered. If you or I did what he did, we’d be in jail.
As an aside, paying for it just means rich people have it easier than poor people. So, again, if he were like us, he’d probably still be in jail.