SCOTUS appointed a president in 2000. They're fucking us again.

[Igel]

14. Here's what was said:

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/28/1231974416/supreme-court-trump-immunity

The justices said, in an unsigned order, that their review would be limited to a single question: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

Take note: If this is always a bad thing, then Biden not only could but should be brought up on charges for what he ordered as President once out of office.. He personally approved some deaths that could be called "murder." Why hasn't this happened in the past? With Nixon? Bush I? Bush II? Obama? Because the DOJ granted that there were times when ordering strikes with deadly force were "official acts" and therefore ... Not to be prosecuted. But does murder have a statute of limitations?

Trump says "total immunity" but the legal filings have never reflected this. He's a bullshitter. But now we may know he's a bullshitter and his words bear about the same relationship to veridicality as Putin's, but when we want it to be so his words drip absolute and total accuracy. (Hint: He's a bullshitter. I think he's rather extreme, but that's because most extreme bullshitter's (different link) don't raise that high in the cesspool.)

Now, will SCOTUS limit their review to this? Well, it'll be fairly obvious from their published decision if they did or didn't.

The rest is stress to the adrenal glands and an increase in blood cortisol levels.