@Sr0bi @Bix Dude, I'm pretty sure we completely agree. Not sure why you want to argue semantics with me. #AreYouHavingFun?
Anyway, I don't agree that it can be unjustified and yet still be "covered" meaning he can't be charged. If he gets away with the crime because anything he does is now written off as a duty of the office (it's at his discretion), then it's been effectively justified, sanctioned, blessed in the system. Take your pick. You're accepting that it is what it is.
I think it's a mistake if there's no effort to challenge the idea that the duties of the president are whatever he wants without limits. We have a serious problem if that's true.
I wouldn't worry about Biden or Harris abusing the ruling for now but the next R POTUS will without question. Count on it.
@Sr0bi @Bix Okay, keep [putting words in my mouth so I can keep spitting them out, I guess.
Our deeply corrupt extra-legal SCOTUS totally made up an absolutely unprecedented unjustifiable new interpretation of the constitution to give their favorite corrupt president cover to get away with anything that SCOTUS construes as "official duties".
@Sr0bi @Bix There is no imaginable way in which "setting and enforcing border policy using the federal government's border apparatus" will be determined by this SCOTUS to be anything but permissible in their view.
I hate this. I decry this. I do not "accept" this.
Ptooie. #TimeToEmptyTheCuspidor
@Boyceaz @Bix
No. No no. There's no official duty that can justify that crime anywhere ever.