Jeff Yang @originalsp.in

The Supremes ruled that a POTUS has immunity for actions directly related to his office, but not personal actions (without defining what those are) so Trump is trying to erase his felony convictions by claiming that paying porn stars hush money for sex is “official POTUS business,” as expected

15 replies 83 reposts 298 likes

Ru Temple 🌈 @rutemple.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 09:05 UTC

Except the felonies happened before he was POTUS, so

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Mad Bastard @madbastard-v2.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 00:01 UTC

But.... he wasn't in office when he paid the hush money.

1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Amanda Hoey @amandahoey.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 01, 2024 at 23:58 UTC

But he wasn't President at the time! Although I'm sure the Federalist Society is hard at work devising a new definition of "official actions" that includes the campaign for the Presidency.

1 replies 0 reposts 16 likes

Wendy M. A. Darling @wendymadarling.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 00:43 UTC

Quelle surprise 🙄

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Trahern @tenebrousfilms.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 03:23 UTC

I was going to argue that The Supremes sound like a superhero group, and the court should in no way be associated with them. But thenI checked, and The Supremes were actually a vocal group for Motown Records in the 60s. Still shouldn't be associated with them.

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

SatelliteOfLove @sattelliteoflove.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 02:43 UTC

*embezzling campaign donations and covering it up.

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Suzanne Mafi King @suzannemking.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 00:50 UTC

Par example, consuming a U.S. citizen's stolen property for personal enjoyment in the Oval Office....

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

EvilAnagram @evilanagram.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 01, 2024 at 23:58 UTC

No, SCOTUS also ruled that anything that intersects official behavior is inadmissible in court as evidence (going way beyond any other form of immunity). So Hope Hicks testifying to his mens rea is retroactively grounds for a mistrial, even though none of the underlying behavior qualifies.

0 replies 1 reposts 10 likes

Jeff Yang @originalsp.in [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 00:06 UTC

Please note that in this case POTUS stands for “Pornstar Ogler Too Ugly for Sex,” by which standard Trump has always been “in office”

0 replies 2 reposts 10 likes

Gori#1 @gori1.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 12:29 UTC

Same guy who argued that it wasn't part of the election, but to keep it from his family. Any argument is a DT argument

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

A-A-Ron @radix4801.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 01, 2024 at 23:59 UTC

Also everything he was convicted of happened before the election and inauguration (when this supposed "immunity" would have taken effect), no? What a tool.

0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes

Blackhole sun won't you come & wash away the Nazis @n0s0ul.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 00:35 UTC

And who will determine what constitutes an "official action"? A radical right wing SCOTUS...

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Mike Holm @mike-holm.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 00:42 UTC

Wait, just a few days ago, Tr*mp said he didn't have sex with a porn star. His argument that his actions were covered by immunity is therefore invalid. CHECKMATE, DONNIE!

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Dave Kartunen @davekartunen.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 00:01 UTC

Before he was president.

0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

[TLB] Klaus @tlbklaus.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 01, 2024 at 23:59 UTC

...there is the minor point that he wasn't president yet when this one happened lol.

1 replies 0 reposts 12 likes