Trump’s lawyer made that explicit argument this AM to @steveinskeep.bsky.social, citing the court decisions that held his social media feeds are official communications so he couldn’t block people, hah hah hah.
Yes, I didn’t consider the ludicrous possibility he could appeal because angry tweets are official acts.
My vestigial connection to humanity occasionally impairs my ability to predict FedSoc arguments.
Though I thought that the recent USSC decision said that the public record of official acts *could* be cited.
So, no citing internal communications with comms staffers workshoping potential tweets, but actual public tweets should be admissible.
not everything a person says is a public act. He did make public pronouncements on Twitter and if he blocked people, they would miss those. He wants to pretend everything he does is official and above reproach and it looks like the Supreme Court will back him on that.
I heard that interview this morning and could only think to myself, “Hey, isn’t this the ongoing argument from these guys? You can’t get him here for this, but there are these other means to hold him accountable.” Then they just turn around and slam the other door shut.
I always thought a basic tenet of law in most countries was that changes in the law can not be retroactive. TFG was found guilty before SCOTUS ruling...?