This could probably go in a lot of places:
https://x.com/ammarmufasa/status/1806383074277515498?s=42&t=BdGqezUVNXch4IkOIkahig
“under my adminstration CO2 went down because I cratered the economy by fucking up the covid response” yeah good one buddy
1 Like
weird that he’s admitting that getting CO2 to go down is good tho
1 Like
So I just spent close to two weeks in a detox facility that also houses people like me for suicide attempts. I got straight up shook when I told the addicts that I can’t vote for a rapist/Trump. They think that the rape ruling is BS and the guy is a straight shooter who is the victim of an intense psy-op. You have to imagine that these people do zero research and only get their information from the commercials where one candidate smears the other with whatever hearsay or facts are available. The debate might be the only time they ever hear both candidates say anything, and beyond that they’re just looking for whoever puts on a better show. These people live in a world of criminal behavior around drugs so don’t really care that Trump is now a felon. One said Carroll only said he raped her because when you’re rich, women will claim rape to make money.
I gave up fast and just said no thanks let’s drop it.
I still think we will see an easy win on voting day, but I can’t lie. The brief conversation with the addicts left me shook.
9 Likes
How many active addicts make it to the voting booth?
2 Likes
That is 100% big standard normie “conservative” ideology that I hear every visit to the in laws.
1 Like
Right that’s what I’m thinking. These are spectators, not voters, so I’m not really concerned about their voting block making a difference.
It’s not an admission, it’s a standard conservative head fake where they just send Dems on a wild goose chase UM ACTUALLY side quest to debunk a misleading statement that absolutely no one gives a shit about. Every minute that Dems spend refuting R talking points is wasted time.
2 Likes
They 100% think they do tons of research.
2 Likes
I met a woman who lives in the tunnels underneath Vegas who thinks Trump is #winning and Biden has dementia.
1 Like
Hope you’re doing better now.
9 Likes
Yeah, shit, hang in there.
1 Like
I’m going to lose my mind if Donald scores points on climate change while Biden just yells “felon, felon, felon!” over and over.
Well I hope all the various Trump case prosecuters have their passports renewed, I expect major State Department delays all fall.
I have a feeling that the NY judge is going to sentence him to a complimentary Amazon gift card or something.
1 Like
The Supreme Court’s three Democratic appointees railed in dissent against the conservative majority’s ruling that former President Donald J. Trump has some immunity for his official actions, declaring that their colleagues had made the president into “a king above the law.”
Writing that the majority was “deeply wrong,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor added that beyond its consequences for the bid to prosecute Mr. Trump for his attempt to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election, it would have “stark” long-term consequences for the future of American democracy.
“The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,” she wrote, in an opinion joined by the other two Democratic appointees, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Insulating the president of the United States — the most powerful person in the country and possibly the world, she noted — from criminal prosecution when he uses his official powers will allow him to freely use his official power to violate the law, exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, or other “evil ends.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” she wrote, adding: “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably.”
Justice Sotomayor also wrote that how the majority had applied the new standard of immunity to official acts to Mr. Trump’s case specifically was “perhaps even more troubling.” Its analysis, she added, operated as a “one-way ratchet” — helping the defense but offering no help to the prosecution.
For example, she wrote, the majority declared that all of Mr. Trump’s actions involving Vice President Mike Pence and the Justice Department counted as official conduct but did not designate any actions in the indictment as falling into the non-“core” category of official conduct that it said could be prosecuted. Nor did it designate as clearly private actions any of several things that Mr. Trump’s team had conceded looked unofficial, like Mr. Trump’s interactions with a personal lawyer.
Justice Sotomayor railed in particular that the majority had declined to rule out immunity for Mr. Trump’s role in organizing fake slates of electors, pressuring states to subvert the legitimate election results, and exploiting the violence of the Jan. 6 riot to influence the certification proceedings.
“It is not conceivable that a prosecution for these alleged efforts to overturn a presidential election, whether labeled official or unofficial under the majority’s test,” would pose any danger of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch, she wrote, adding that “the majority could have said as much,” but did not.
Sometimes justices conclude their dissents with a softening and polite qualifier, writing “Respectfully, I dissent.” Justice Sotomayor instead concluded this one harshly: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
1 Like
Andrew Weissmann has talked about this possibility but most people dismissed the idea. I don’t see how it can happen but then none of today’s decision makes sense to me. I mean, if official acts can’t be evidence, how can you introduce evidence to determine whether something is an official act?
1 Like
law bros to the rescue!
3 Likes
lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
9 Likes
No, official acts can’t be used as evidence for another crime. So saying you’ll pardon someone if they do X can’t be used against you because pardoning is an official act. Whether or not something is an official act is supposed to be an avenue of approach but what the Supreme Court also said that to determine whether is something is an official act is supposed to be determined very liberally in favor of the President. Basically they can only do it if it’s impossible that it’d intrude on the President’s power which means it’s basically has to be spelled out that X isn’t an official act.