Chris Hayes: this is a brilliant point that I was struggling to articulate.

this is a brilliant point that I was struggling to articulate.

Speaking as a semanticist, it's wild to me that they are phrasing it in terms of whether an *act* is characterized as "official", when what they seem to actually be talking about is whether there exists a *description* of the act that can be characterized as "official".

They took a Hippo shitpost and made it part of the Constitution

I dealt with this rationalizing all school year with a bunch of racist shitheel sophomores. “Oh, I can’t tell a classmate good job anymore”. No fuckwit, you can’t scream out the window.

This is similar to the distinction I was drawing here, between the official act and the method employed in service of that act. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

Analysis | The perfectly valid presidential-immunity murder hypotheticalwww.washingtonpost.com Trump’s defenders (and some of his critics) are often missing the point of the argument.

This is the same John Roberts that has been gutting the VRA with circular logic that the law worked so well at stopping racist voter suppression that we don't need a law against it anymore. Every single one of his goddamn opinions has been "this umbrella keeps us dry so therefore the rain stopped."

I’m a knife maker not a legal scholar but this appears to be the result of making it up as they go along.

They want case-by-case authority.

Probably president by president, but yeah

That's another way of putting it. But the idea is in the ballpark. To be honest, I thought they took the case to squash the idea of absolute immunity and articulate a qualified immunity for the presidency; maybe codify the DoJ memo and say a sitting president couldn't be charged with a crime. /1

But alas, they rummaged around in Warren Burger's old desk and dug out core functions to open up a can of worms. And they're the only ones with a hook. Now they can just make it up as they go along. /2x

The idea of not looking to motive isntithetical to the most basic principles of criminal law, which require both an actus reus (act) and a mens rea (state of mind) to constitute a crime. For example, it can be perfectly legal to buy a cop a cup of coffee but not if you’re trying to bribe them.

Without looking at mens rea, you’re effectively presuming an innocent intent for any action, and virtually nothing in criminal law has strict liability (ie liability irrespective of intent). The only thing that jumps to mind are status crimes, like illegal immigration.

Wouldn't one just potentially go straight to the Office of Legal Counsel, ask for them to declare X to be an official act, then do it. And then of course, because you control the OLC as POTUS, you staff the OLC with people who will say yes, obviously official act.

Why bother with all that when you can just declare all your acts as official acts by mental telepathy?

They seemed to deliberately avoid defining or giving Alexa’s of these “acts,” while also insisting (in this and other arguments) that they aren’t interested in hypotheticals.

Examples (not Alexa’s)

This is very similar to the faux outrage over calling out certain claims as false -- the idea that if there exists *some* interpretation of a claim that is true then it is true, regardless of the interpretative context.

Yeah they did this same shit with the church bans during the lock down. “People are allowed to go shop for groceries, that is an activity where a crowd gathers. Church is exactly like that, so……”

www.dailykos.com/stories/2024...

GOP celebrates immunity ruling—so long as it doesn’t apply to Bidenwww.dailykos.com Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity invites the nation’s leader to participate in a four-year crime spree, including doing away with opponents , while secure in the knowledge ...

Bunch of assholes and hypocrites!

Can any half-baked open and logically indefensible sophism be created in which we can describe an act as "official"? Then it will be deemed "official". I am sorry but you need section 25 and go with Kamala *now*. The relief at having someone who can take it to Trump will be immediate & palpable.

It's important to raise Biden's health in the same breath, because the only path out of this is winning everything in November. I wish there were a way you could run Obama again.

You and your cohorts where you work are full of crap thinking there's some reason people won't vote for Biden. And I'm being as kind as possible. The general tenor is Biden will be reelected and it won't be close. Find something else to fret, Please. Signed, Every Democratic voter I know.

It's not Democrat voters you need to worry about though. It's poorly informed white guys voting on gut feel in swing states.

They are all so out of touch with working Americans who don't want autocracy. Living their lives, I'd be out of touch, too. Live in one of the reddest parts of Fl. 4 yrs ago, there were dozens of trump signs in every direction. Now, hard to find them. Not saying Fl will turn blue, but it says smtg

Lord, I hope so. The world is depending on it.

I see what I see and I hear what I hear. Spent an hour talking and listening to folks at a Walmart 22 miles away. There are huge farms on the way. Only one of those farms had trump signs, three of em, and none of the other farms had any. Even though they had all sorts of signs for local elections.😉

Their wives and daughters will nullify their votes. 😉

No. They're all cut from the same cloth, go to the same churches, read the same propaganda on Facebook. Look at Martha Alito, Ginni Thomas, Aileen Cannon.

I live around them. Shop with them. Hire them because there are no other options. I also listen to them. Think what you may. Panic if you choose. It's not going to be close, and Biden will win.

That is a massive relief to hear. What do you think is happening with the polls?

They’re cavemen.

This is basically “the legal profession”

I'm sure one of the desired, but unspecified, effects of this decision is to condemn us to quibbling over an abomination. The fascists are suddenly bolder, making their moves while the targets struggle to articulate what "is" is and isn't.

Honest question: Top secret Israel info shared with Russia in the oval, oil execs told they'll get laws they want if 1M donated to campaign (aka legal fees), and other classified docs in public washrooms - does the National Security Dept really agree with #SCOTUS and not care about bribes/pardons

Is there a simple solution ... yes, but no one wants to admit it.

Are you incapable of giving credit without trying to take some of it? Geez man.

it is not a presidents official job to defraud steal or murder nor is it his official job to show secrets to every enemy spy in the world or divulge nuclear secrets to kill osama bin laden is one thing to kill your political rivals is not his job

Post