well, the president has no role, official or otherwise, in the election process or certification of election results. his only role was to vacate 1600 penn ave and leave the government and peoples' property behind.

so i fully expect scRotus to intervene again, once the district judge in dc rules along those lines.

My understanding is that if a prosecutor even wants to bring charges against someone who was president when the alleged offense(s) were committed, the prosecutor has to first demonstrate that the offending acts were not "official acts."

Nobody really knows what that looks like, of course, but it definitely opens the door for Judge Chutkan to call for hearings on whether the acts alleged to be criminal were "official" or not. Which would probably look exactly like a trial - presentation of evidence, witnesses, cross examination, defense - just where the only judgment at the end would be "Nope, not official acts."

Then that gets appealed, all the way to SCOTUS, then maybe an actual trial happens. Then they complain that there's no way to get an impartial jury, because everyone already knows all the details of the case, that gets appealed ...

Delay is the point, and SCOTUS is complicit.

We actually had to pass section 1983 of the federal code in 1871 for that exact reason. The founders may have intended it, but they didn't write it down specifically. Then in 1874 an unnamed secretary illegally revised the law while "copying" it from the Congressional Record to the Federal Register. This led to the Qualified Immunity argument that was the crux of Harlow v Fitzgerald.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

"Outer perimeter of official responsibility"? WTF is that? How is that enforceable?

Remember when there was that standoff between Texas and the Feds along the border? There was a lot of bloviating about how it was an invasion force, and that Biden was somehow using it to orchestrate an overthrow of the US Government. Of course, the truth was nothing of the sort. Biden, as President, and the Homeland Security department under him, has a lot of leeway in terms of how they execute laws, but Congress still makes the laws, and Republicans in Congress have deliberately let the situation at the border fester to score political points.

However, if this Supreme Court ruling had gone fully the other way, and the President was ruled to have no particular immunity whatsoever, it would only be a matter of time before some local prosecutor in Texas would decide to prosecute Biden for insurrection, as retribution for Trump's current situation. Even though there are no facts that actually back up a case against Biden, while we all saw what happened on Jan 6th.

So, the idea that Presidents can't be prosecuted for simply doing their jobs has some merit. But the Supreme Court went way too far constructing way too high a burden for prosecutors who need to investigate crimes committed by the President outside that perimeter. Under this guidance, the President could direct the Secretary of State to include a discussion of building a golf course in treaty negotiations, and even if that is found out, prosecutors can't call the Secretary to testify or use that evidence in court in a bribery investigation

Me too, friend. It could all be so simple if we approached every decision with love and care. :’(

By her term two he'll probably be dead (of natural causes.)

I don't agree with the ratings. Fox News gets a "medium" which puts it on the same ground as a lot of actual news sites. There's no way that should get anything more than a "low" or something below that.

I can't tell how they're determined other than a singular brief mention of one thing, so to me it looks like they made the call based on one event they cherry picked. But really, it doesn't matter though to me to investigate any group that rates fox news so highly. I've had to suffer through their bullshit lies for years and find them responsible for a lot of the partisan damage we've seen over the decades. Medium? What the fuck does it take to get a low rating?

I haven't down voted it, but I have seen people questioning the credibility of the bot's creator. Maybe has something to do with it. I didn't care enough to read the details myself though.

edit: after actually looking at the bot provided info for the first time rather than scrolling past it, I think it should also try to include info like who owns the news outlet and what else they own.

It's just noise to me. Though I don't downvote it, I enjoy watching it being downvoted.