re: Would someone please explain the crimes Trump committed?

When SCOTUS rules on the immunity case pretty much in favor of Trump -because at the very least they will kick it back to the previous court, which means it will not see the light of day again this election season - it will begin the inevitable process of creating tests for immunity that will never allow states, and their partisan actors, to harass Executives by exceeding their subservient roles.

This will happen and all the crying and gnashing of teeth will not stop it.

In the meantime, this ridiculous case by a local DA -while also not concluding on schedule to affect this election cycle- will be exposed as moot. But, more importantly, it will ultimately be squashed completely by the eventual SCOTUS refinements.

Again, this will happen regardless of all the crying and gnashing of teeth. The Constitution is more a political document guiding governance than some sort of mysterious and arcane legal Rosetta Stone to be understood by a coven of barristers.

SCOTUS must and will, ultimately, consider history -past and future- and not legal theory. Hell even Kagan and Sotomayor had pointed questions in this regard; the only one that didn't catch on was the token dingbat.

Barrett inserted the bare bodkin with a surgeon's precision. All of this lawfare is over but the crying.

Don't take my word for it. Just listen to the Democrat hacks who two days ago were still caterwauling about justice through the legal system and are today crying that SCOTUS is a partisan organ of the right (I'm talkin' to you, Raskins ). How the turntables...