3 ms·

Could any of the acts that Trump is currently being prosecuted for be plausibly described as official?

by jl6 2y ago

kstenerud 2y ago
They don't have to be plausible. The Supreme Court simply has to say that they're official and that's good enough.
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  I think what it means is that the President decides what he thinks are official duties, and if anybody questions that they will have to take it to court. And that there are now much fewer restrictions on Presidential power than there were yesterday, nothing like the narrow band experienced since the time of Geo Washington. Any restriction is now in question if it ties the Presidents' hands as much as in the past. Unprecedented extreme actions are moved from black & white to a grey area. Whatever might be brought to court is made more difficult to decide, and more likely to end up in the highest courts. Decided by the same unelected officials who ceded more of the citizens' balance of power to an Executive who is already difficult to hold accountable, while gaining a greater portion of power for Judiciary also, as collateral damage.
Arnt 2y ago
I don't see how. I don't follow his antics very closely, but there's some accounting/tax shenanigans and there's the matter of an election in one of the states. Let me try to consider both. If those tax things were official, then wouldn't that mean that the owner would be his employer? You can do your employer's or customer's tax paperwork during office hours, so if he did that during office hours the owner of the that ugly buidling is the federal state. Which doesn't make sense, right? So therefore he didn't do that in his official capacity. If you work with the Georgian elections in an official capacity, then you're either an official of the State of Georgia. Is a federal official such as the president empowered to act on behalf of states? If not, then time spent calling a Georgian official about Georgian elections cannot reasonably be called official.
legitster 2y ago
In the decision, the Supreme Court says that 3 of the 4 indictments can proceed with the caveat that the prosecution needs to include a legal argument that the acts were unofficial.

Could any of the acts that Trump is currently being prosecuted for be plausibly described as official?

by jl6 2y ago

Could any of the acts that Trump is currently being prosecuted for be plausibly described as official?

kstenerud 2y ago

They don't have to be plausible. The Supreme Court simply has to say that they're official and that's good enough.

fuzzfactor 2y ago
I think what it means is that the President decides what he thinks are official duties, and if anybody questions that they will have to take it to court. And that there are now much fewer restrictions on Presidential power than there were yesterday, nothing like the narrow band experienced since the time of Geo Washington. Any restriction is now in question if it ties the Presidents' hands as much as in the past. Unprecedented extreme actions are moved from black & white to a grey area. Whatever might be brought to court is made more difficult to decide, and more likely to end up in the highest courts. Decided by the same unelected officials who ceded more of the citizens' balance of power to an Executive who is already difficult to hold accountable, while gaining a greater portion of power for Judiciary also, as collateral damage.

Arnt 2y ago

I don't see how. I don't follow his antics very closely, but there's some accounting/tax shenanigans and there's the matter of an election in one of the states. Let me try to consider both. If those tax things were official, then wouldn't that mean that the owner would be his employer? You can do your employer's or customer's tax paperwork during office hours, so if he did that during office hours the owner of the that ugly buidling is the federal state. Which doesn't make sense, right? So therefore he didn't do that in his official capacity. If you work with the Georgian elections in an official capacity, then you're either an official of the State of Georgia. Is a federal official such as the president empowered to act on behalf of states? If not, then time spent calling a Georgian official about Georgian elections cannot reasonably be called official.

legitster 2y ago

In the decision, the Supreme Court says that 3 of the 4 indictments can proceed with the caveat that the prosecution needs to include a legal argument that the acts were unofficial.