[FRIAM] [un]official disambiguation?

[glen]

I don't think so. E.g. Trump's threat to fire the AG for not opening investigations seems official, if a bit unethical. So the righties' rhetoric about "Biden's persecution of Trump" is nonsense. It would (now) be a clearly official act for Biden to threaten the AG for refusing to open an investigation into Trump. But the conclusions of that investigation are another matter. The effects of such acts percolate down through the admin, then back up through the courts. What's missing in action is the 3rd branch, here. And I think it's safe to claim the Senate bears most of the responsibility for a defunkt legislature.

Anyway, the hysteria on all sides to this ruling seem similar to the Dems' hysteria w.r.t. Biden's debate performance. It's like everyone's lost their executive function. I'm starting to think we need to send every citizen through pilot training so they can learn to stay calm under duress ... and I'm normally the first to insult the Rationalists. 8^D

On 7/1/24 08:49, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> The "outer perimeter" would allow Biden to through Trump in a dungeon, etc.  No?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 7:59 AM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] [un]official disambiguation?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/jul/01/supreme-court-trump-immunity-claim-decision-updates#top-of-blog
> 
> Anyone care to take a stab at explaining why the ruling doesn't simply kick the can down the road a bit? I mean, how could (say) hiding secret documents, riot incitation at a campaign event, etc. be considered official acts of the Office of the President? I suppose I can see some of the evidence being thrown out, like claims about POTUS not getting involved in protecting the Capitol building. But is this ruling really that damaging to the prosecution's case?
> 


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ