ijebosb:


Budatuum has a soft/bind spot for Bemeruca's lies.

The above is no different to a stupid idiot yelling ijebos is gay.

And anyone who has been here long enough would shake their head at your nonsense.

budaatum:


Also, please stop trying to give buda affirmation by calling me a smart person. buda does not require being told buda is smart, because buda already knows buda is very intelligent and immensely smart. Ego, you see.

I don't do affirmation.
But, after spending a considerable amount of time trying to explain something that was kind of obvious. I will stop.

ijebosb:


To put a cap in it. I was going to ask a question in the USA Visa thread. But didn't want to waste someone's time on something frivolous as making you look stupid again. So, I did a search.

Keep lying, Liar.

okay, someone was applying for a visiting Visa and his agent says he Needs it and other people say he does not need it. so it must be the same experience for someone who is applying for a different kind of visa. Okay lol

LordAdam16:


Noted.

What are your views on the potential VP pick?

Gotta say I'm not enamored by the roster. The names being floated do not excite me.
There's an asterisk to every one of them.
It's either they don't add much to the ticket, they aren't dyed-in-the-wool MAGA and will turn on Trump if the opportunity presents (still reeling from the Pence backstab), or they'd even be liabilities.

I'm not a big fan of identity politics, but I'd want a woman on the ticket. Abortion is a big issue. But we've got milquetoast Tulsi, cardboard Noem, and McCain-in-stilettos Nikki. I'd take Lake or Sanders but they're not on the shortlist.
Next up are minority males. Vivek will lock in some Americans and alienate others. Tim Scott and Ben Carson are no Obama. I can't believe Rubio, Vance, Bergum are being floated. These are next-gen Pompeos, Tillersons or Mattis. They'd be the anonymous sources of his second Presidency.

I really do wish he waits until the Dem nominee situation is resolved before he drops a name.

What's your take?

-Lord

Actually I also have strong reservations concerning some of those potential picks even though I understand the logic and politics behind it but Trump has to be wise, calculative and decisive... VP don't really matter these days (check out Harris) though it helped Trump in 2016 because he's new on the political arena and needed a conservative evangelical long time republican as running mate to convince voters that he's not a limousine liberal as Ted Cruz labelled him during the primaries.

Right now I'd prefer Carson or Donalds because they'd be palatable to the broad republican base and mainstream establishment... They wouldn't turn off any sect of voters at all because you wouldn't love to be on the record opposing a black VP candidate... They'd also be solid on issues and wouldn't commit to certifying any future fraudulent elections.

Democrats and the establishment/deep state wouldn't try much to remove Trump because they know they'd be getting either Trump 2.0 in Donalds or an unpredictable Carson... They also wouldn't want the Republicans to produce the first black male VP.

Vivek is even viewed by some republicans as a snake but I think he'd be good too but some Republicans might take offense in his personality.
The reason Trump might not chose Vivek is due to his penchant/affinity to attention... Two showmen on the stage would disagree might be problematic and Vivek has his own ambitions too but he's an impeachment check on the deep state/Dems.

Doug Borgum has lots of question marks... He adds nothing extraordinary to the ticket but he balances it just like Carson would too.
But he'd seems like a globalist RINO who would suck up to China... Remember he vetoed Trans bills and gave land to Chinese communists in small state deep-red North Dakota.
I have little faith in the guy but democrats would have a hard time labelling him as a extremist.
Tim Scott is a cowering thunderbolt and quite solid but a bigger RINO than Borgum... Remember he tanked some conservative judges during Trump's presidency.

Ron DeSantis would have been the best option but he already burnt bridges with Trump and annoyed the base during his campaign... Nicki Haley is a no no... She pisses me off badly.
Lake would be a solid pick.

The best reliable conservative woman pick would be Sarah Huckabee Sanders... The best male would be Carson and Donalds (if he agrees to move from Florida).

Laurene:
Actually I also have strong reservations concerning some of those potential picks even though I understand the logic and politics behind it but Trump has to be wise, calculative and decisive... VP don't really matter these days (check out Harris) though it helped Trump in 2016 because he's new on the political arena and needed a conservative evangelical long time republican as running mate to convince voters that he's not a limousine liberal as Ted Cruz labelled him during the primaries.

Right now I'd prefer Carson or Donalds because they'd be palatable to the broad republican base and mainstream establishment... They wouldn't turn off any sect of voters at all because you wouldn't love to be on the record opposing a black VP candidate... They'd also be solid on issues and wouldn't commit to certifying any future fraudulent elections.

Democrats and the establishment/deep state wouldn't try much to remove Trump because they know they'd be getting either Trump 2.0 in Donalds or an unpredictable Carson... They also wouldn't want the Republicans to produce the first black male VP.

Vivek is even viewed by some republicans as a snake but I think he'd be good too but some Republicans might take offense in his personality.
The reason Trump might not chose Vivek is due to his penchant/affinity to attention... Two showmen on the stage would disagree might be problematic and Vivek has his own ambitions too but he's an impeachment check on the deep state/Dems.

Doug Borgum has lots of question marks... He adds nothing extraordinary to the ticket but he balances it just like Carson would too.
But he'd seems like a globalist RINO who would suck up to China... Remember he vetoed Trans bills and gave land to Chinese communists in small state deep-red North Dakota.
I have little faith in the guy but democrats would have a hard time labelling him as a extremist.
Tim Scott is a cowering thunderbolt and quite solid but a bigger RINO than Borgum... Remember he tanked some conservative judges during Trump's presidency.

Ron DeSantis would have been the best option but he already burnt bridges with Trump and annoyed the base during his campaign... Nicki Haley is a no no... She pisses me off badly.
Lake would be a solid pick.

The best reliable conservative woman pick would be Sarah Huckabee Sanders... The best male would be Carson and Donalds (if he agrees to move from Florida).

What do you think about Kristi Noem or Stefanik

raumdeuter:


What do you think about Kristi Noem or Stefanik

I don't trust Stefanik on issues but she's a strong Trump backer and would defend him at any cost... She has quite a mainstream/moderate voting record.
If Trump wants a New Yorker then Lee Zeldin is the best... He has broad appeal and had a strong conservative voting record in Congress.

Noem would be good too regardless of scandals but something seems off about her of which I can't really wrap my hands around.

Kari Lake would be bulletproof against the deepstate strikes.

bemeruca:


He has to hide his face

Xenophobic black man hater says what?
Hide face from you stupid maga cultist?

Like I said before, President Biden's unwashed boxer shorts or even Kamala Harris's stove will win against an adjudicated rapist and the convicted felon trump who's going to jail anyway.

It's only the most foolish of idiots that think a bad debate night against a liar and a convict is what's gonna determine the election.

Stop being an idiot bruuuh

basilico:
Ijesbosb, AmazonTopaz ( whom I don't regard highly), plus my favorite punching bag budaatum.
Lemmie add Obrigardo too.
What does this ruling portend?

The supreme court is truly corrupt. Just look at clearance Thomas and christofascist alito, the bribes and special interests, and do you think this ruling was in good faith? Nope!
We are expanding the court and bringing in term limits in President Biden's second term.

Still the main insurrectionists are facing the music and they won't be free for at least decades from now.

Who's that unemployed drug and porn addict, so obsessed with me. Yuck!

Laurene:
Actually I also have strong reservations concerning some of those potential picks even though I understand the logic and politics behind it but Trump has to be wise, calculative and decisive... VP don't really matter these days (check out Harris) though it helped Trump in 2016 because he's new on the political arena and needed a conservative evangelical long time republican as running mate to convince voters that he's not a limousine liberal as Ted Cruz labelled him during the primaries.

Right now I'd prefer Carson or Donalds because they'd be palatable to the broad republican base and mainstream establishment... They wouldn't turn off any sect of voters at all because you wouldn't love to be on the record opposing a black VP candidate... They'd also be solid on issues and wouldn't commit to certifying any future fraudulent elections.

Democrats and the establishment/deep state wouldn't try much to remove Trump because they know they'd be getting either Trump 2.0 in Donalds or an unpredictable Carson... They also wouldn't want the Republicans to produce the first black male VP.

Vivek is even viewed by some republicans as a snake but I think he'd be good too but some Republicans might take offense in his personality.
The reason Trump might not chose Vivek is due to his penchant/affinity to attention... Two showmen on the stage would disagree might be problematic and Vivek has his own ambitions too but he's an impeachment check on the deep state/Dems.

Doug Borgum has lots of question marks... He adds nothing extraordinary to the ticket but he balances it just like Carson would too.
But he'd seems like a globalist RINO who would suck up to China... Remember he vetoed Trans bills and gave land to Chinese communists in small state deep-red North Dakota.
I have little faith in the guy but democrats would have a hard time labelling him as a extremist.
Tim Scott is a cowering thunderbolt and quite solid but a bigger RINO than Borgum... Remember he tanked some conservative judges during Trump's presidency.

Ron DeSantis would have been the best option but he already burnt bridges with Trump and annoyed the base during his campaign... Nicki Haley is a no no... She pisses me off badly.
Lake would be a solid pick.

The best reliable conservative woman pick would be Sarah Huckabee Sanders... The best male would be Carson and Donalds (if he agrees to move from Florida).

I hope you took a clean shower after writing this drivel.

Something is fundamentally wrong with maga cultists, like mentally wrong up there if you think an adjudicated rapist and a convicted felon is gonna be the one controlling shit that's gonna affect your livelihood and even your family's.

Hopefully, the majority doesnt side with you. So you better get your head in shape. And you should have a sliver of shame backing a convicted felon who's gonna lose anyway.

raumdeuter:


What do you think about Kristi Noem or Stefanik

Bruuh, you have no shame at all? I wonder what your family thinks of you if you can surrender your life into the hands of an adjudicated rapist, a felon, a liar and an insurrectionist.

I doubt you'll say this openly to people in real life. Shameful.

Laurene:
I don't trust Stefanik on issues but she's a strong Trump backer and would defend him at any cost... She has quite a mainstream/moderate voting record.
If Trump wants a New Yorker then Lee Zeldin is the best... He has broad appeal and had a strong conservative voting record in Congress.

Noem would be good too regardless of scandals but something seems off about her of which I can't really wrap my hands around.

Kari Lake would be bulletproof against the deepstate strikes.

Damn, you maga cultists are so putridly and pungently annoying. Have a little bit of shame bro.

Black voters not supporting Republicans isn't a Trump issue but in contrary it's a generic issue.

Blacks has been engineered not to support any republican regardless of how bad the opposing democrat may be... They grew up being told not to vote republicans.
It's only few conservative blacks and those that immigrated from Africa that supports most of republican messaging in broader view.

John James faced Gary Peters (a white man) and still lost 90% of black support... Tim Scott(a black man) keeps getting elected in South Carolina without gaining more than 5% of black vote.

Anyone that tells you it's just Trump's rhetoric or style is a bloody liar.

Laurene:
Actually I also have strong reservations concerning some of those potential picks even though I understand the logic and politics behind it but Trump has to be wise, calculative and decisive... VP don't really matter these days (check out Harris) though it helped Trump in 2016 because he's new on the political arena and needed a conservative evangelical long time republican as running mate to convince voters that he's not a limousine liberal as Ted Cruz labelled him during the primaries.

Right now I'd prefer Carson or Donalds because they'd be palatable to the broad republican base and mainstream establishment... They wouldn't turn off any sect of voters at all because you wouldn't love to be on the record opposing a black VP candidate... They'd also be solid on issues and wouldn't commit to certifying any future fraudulent elections.

Democrats and the establishment/deep state wouldn't try much to remove Trump because they know they'd be getting either Trump 2.0 in Donalds or an unpredictable Carson... They also wouldn't want the Republicans to produce the first black male VP.

Vivek is even viewed by some republicans as a snake but I think he'd be good too but some Republicans might take offense in his personality.
The reason Trump might not chose Vivek is due to his penchant/affinity to attention... Two showmen on the stage would disagree might be problematic and Vivek has his own ambitions too but he's an impeachment check on the deep state/Dems.

Doug Borgum has lots of question marks... He adds nothing extraordinary to the ticket but he balances it just like Carson would too.
But he'd seems like a globalist RINO who would suck up to China... Remember he vetoed Trans bills and gave land to Chinese communists in small state deep-red North Dakota.
I have little faith in the guy but democrats would have a hard time labelling him as a extremist.
Tim Scott is a cowering thunderbolt and quite solid but a bigger RINO than Borgum... Remember he tanked some conservative judges during Trump's presidency.

Ron DeSantis would have been the best option but he already burnt bridges with Trump and annoyed the base during his campaign... Nicki Haley is a no no... She pisses me off badly.
Lake would be a solid pick.

The best reliable conservative woman pick would be Sarah Huckabee Sanders... The best male would be Carson and Donalds (if he agrees to move from Florida).

Nodding my head all through and pointing my fingers at certain sentences; like "That. That too..."
I suppose I should resign myself to a pick that'd be contentious.
Shaping up to be a wild ride in the latter stages of this campaign.

-Lord

Obrigardo:


I hope you took a clean shower after writing this drivel.

Something is fundamentally wrong with maga cultists, like mentally wrong up there if you think an adjudicated rapist and a convicted felon is gonna be the one controlling shit that's gonna affect your livelihood and even your family's.

Hopefully, the majority doesnt side with you. So you better get your head in shape. And you should have a sliver of shame backing a convicted felon who's gonna lose anyway.

Esp. when she said Sanders would be a good pick. Sanders who is already mired in corruption allegations in her deep Republican state.

The problem with these posts is that most of these people are talking about matters that will never affect them. Raumdateur is the only person who actually lives in the states who this election will actually affect. And at times he sounds rational. The others rarely talk about issues. If you don't get US health care, don't have a US job, don't get affected by US racism, don't have to worry about regulations, sending your Black child to College, buying/selling a house and doing do as a black person in the US, etc etc, what perspective are you speaking from?

That's the reason some of these posters at some point pretended to have lived in the states. They understand it adds a certain imprimatur to their posts. It's a know tactic that disinformation artists use to sound relatable. Like Russians pretending to being black Americans and pushing Trump talking points (some of which are then posted here). Because it works.

Some here even pretend to be women like Laurene. Her speech patterns were off so I read some of her previous posts and she's been called out for being a man(which was obvious) and also pretending to live in the US. I'm only calling her out now, because we are getting close to the election and pretending to be a woman and pretending to live in the States is a tactic of disinformation. And I find it very peculiar that a man would pretend to be a woman on a Nigerian board. I can see the advantages though, deference.

It is surprising to me though that a lot of Nigerians support Trump. But I guess, Nigerians are very "religious" and so they would support the Republicans as they would think Republicans are very "Religious" as well. And I guess some Nigerians are "religious" just like Republicans are "religious"... just in name only. The odd thing, is, everyone I know who I find to be legit men/women of God will be voting Democratic.

Laurene:
Black voters not supporting Republicans isn't a Trump issue but in contrary it's a generic issue.

Democrat has a engineered not to support any republican regardless of how bad the opposing democrat may be... They grew up being told not to vote republicans.
It's only few conservative blacks and those that immigrated from Africa that supports most of republican messaging in broader view.

John James faced Gary Peters (a white man) and still lost 90% of black support... Tim Scott(a black man) keeps getting elected in South Carolina without gaining more than 5% of black vote.

Anyone that tells you it's just Trump's rhetoric or style is a bloody liar.

Generic issue? You mean because there are a lot of people in the Republican tent that would prefer Black people be unalive?
So, no it's not just Trump. But Trump's racism is clear.

Your focus seems to be on identity politics rather than policies, so in your mind you can't fathom a black person voting for someone else who isn't black. Unfortunately for you, black people are capable of seeing beyond race and understanding policies, even if you don't.

I'm a black Christian. My parents were immigrants and didn't talk politics and couldn't even vote when I was young. Why did I become a Democrat? Catechism class and the racism I experienced. The Democratic party seemed more aligned with the actual message of the Bible.

Supreme Court Ruling came out. By 6-3 decision the Court ruled Trump does have Presidential immunity for Constitutional acts, the presumption of immunity for Official Acts, no immunity for Personal acts.

Crazy decision. America has changed. This is how a country like the USA begins to look like Nigeria.

Below is part of the dissent.

Here's a detailed summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States:

1. Background:
- This case concerns the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
- The indictment alleges that Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 election results through various means, including pressuring state officials and the Vice President.

2. Court's Ruling:
- The Court held that under the constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his Presidency.

3. New Immunity Framework:
a. Core Constitutional Powers:
- The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

b. Other Official Acts:
- The President is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
- This presumptive immunity can potentially be overcome if applying a criminal prohibition would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

c. Unofficial Acts:
- There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

4. Application to the Case:
- The Court ruled that Trump has absolute immunity for his interactions with Justice Department officials described in the indictment.
- For other allegations, such as those involving state officials, the Vice President, and the January 6 events, the Court remanded to lower courts to determine if they were official or unofficial acts.

5. Rejection of Trump's Broader Immunity Claim:
- The Court rejected Trump's argument that the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires impeachment and Senate conviction before criminal prosecution of a President.

6. Evidentiary Ruling:
- The Court held that evidence of official acts for which a President is immune cannot be admitted at trial, even to prove intent or knowledge for non-immune acts.

7. Dissenting Opinions:
- Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, strongly dissented, arguing that the decision puts Presidents above the law and could allow future Presidents to commit crimes with impunity.
- Justice Jackson wrote a separate dissent focusing on the theoretical implications of the Court's new "Presidential accountability model."

8. Concurring Opinions:
- Justice Thomas concurred, raising additional questions about the appointment of the Special Counsel.
- Justice Barrett concurred in part, disagreeing with the Court's evidentiary ruling.

9. Remand:
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court's new immunity framework.

10. Implications:
- The decision significantly alters the landscape of Presidential accountability and raises complex questions about the balance of power between branches of government.
- It leaves many open questions about how to categorize Presidential actions and when immunity applies, which lower courts will now have to grapple with.

What is wild about this immunity ruling, this is everything Conservative 2nd amendment Gun nutters would be freaking out over. An unaccountable President/federal government immune to do whatever they want and above the law. Yet, because of Trump they were cheering it.

ijebosb:


It is surprising to me though that a lot of Nigerians support Trump. But I guess, Nigerians are very "religious" and so they would support the Republicans as they would think Republicans are very "Religious" as well. And I guess some Nigerians are "religious" just like Republicans are "religious"... just in name only. The odd thing, is, everyone I know who I find to be legit men/women of God will be voting Democratic.

That's so crazy man. At the end of it all, the maga movement is just based on pure hate! Nothing else! Hate is at the core of this disgusting maga cult.
It's only hate that can drive a self-professed christian or evangelical to support a RAPIST and a Fraud, a convicted felon to lord over his/her life. The criminal gives them the outlet to amplify their hate on whom they deem "infidels".

Obrigardo:


That's so crazy man. At the end of it all, the maga movement is just based on pure hate! Nothing else! Hate is at the core of this disgusting maga cult.
It's only hate that can drive a self-professed christian or evangelical to support a RAPIST and a Fraud, a convicted felon to lord over his/her life. The criminal gives them the outlet to amplify their hate on whom they deem "infidels".

It is based on hate. But too many well intentioned Christians have gotten caught up in it.
I think Christians at out core have to take a hard look at ourselves, our churches, our preaches and what we do vs. what we say we believe.
The support of Trump is an issue with Christianity.

PDPGuy as a Lawyer,so can Biden have Trump arrested and locked up and claim it is official act? How do we differentiate between official and unofficial acts?

Truly, Election has consequences

What a Pity for America!

happney65:
PDPGuy as a Lawyer,so can Biden have Trump arrested and locked up and claim it is official act? How do we differentiate between official and unofficial acts?

Truly, Election has consequences

What a Pity for America!

The SCOTUS said Trump has immunity from official acts but not for unofficial acts

Its now left to the lower courts to clarify what is Official act and what is not official act

E.g Ordering the killing of a known terrorist like Osama, Suleimani who pose a threat to the US is an official act, ordering the killing of a business associate who you don't like is an unofficial act

This is a very simple thing, What will be the reason for Biden to order the arrest on Trump?

Let me ask you the order to kill Osama where do you think it falls under? vs the order to kill a random civilian

Everyone has an official duty and an unofficial duty. A company driver carrying business luggage for delivery vs the same driver going to party on the weekend. Which one is official and which is unofficial ??

Let me see how hard it is to differentiate between both

ijebosb:
What is wild about this immunity ruling, this is everything Conservative 2nd amendment Gun nutters would be freaking out over. An unaccountable President/federal government immune to do whatever they want and above the law. Yet, because of Trump they were cheering it.

Lol I don't want to hear them talk about Obama going to jail, see how they are using hate and demagoguery to destroy democracy in America.

raumdeuter:


The SCOTUS said Trump has immunity from official acts but not for unofficial acts

Its now left to the lower courts to clarify what is Official act and what is not official act

E.g Ordering the killing of a known terrorist like Osama, Suleimani who pose a threat to the US is an official act, ordering the killing of a business associate who you don't like is an unofficial act

This is a very simple thing, What will be the reason for Biden to order the arrest on Trump?

Let me ask you the order to kill Osama where do you think it falls under? vs the order to kill a random civilian

Everyone has an official duty and an unofficial duty. A driver carrying business luggage for delivery vs the same driver going to party on the weekend. Which one is official and which is unofficial

But asking a state official to help him find votes is official acts?

Or telling his supporters to storm the Capital to "stop the steal" is official acts?

Is it possible that only the President can tell what’s official or not ?

I think it’s best to first understand why Trump approached the high court in the first place.

happney65:


But asking a state official to help him find votes is official acts?

Or telling his supporters to storm the Capital to "stop the steal" is official acts?

That is why the SCOTUS is telling the lower courts to differentiate which is official and which is not

Or what is outrageous about this ruling? This is a simple common sense ruling

Simply put. There are official duties which are covered and unofficial which are not covered

or should we start trying Presidents who order killing terrorists for murder because we are pretending not to know what is official and what is not official?

raumdeuter:


The SCOTUS said Trump has immunity from official acts but not for unofficial acts

Its now left to the lower courts to clarify what is Official act and what is not official act

E.g Ordering the killing of a known terrorist like Osama, Suleimani who pose a threat to the US is an official act, ordering the killing of a business associate who you don't like is an unofficial act

This is a very simple thing, What will be the reason for Biden to order the arrest on Trump?

Let me ask you the order to kill Osama where do you think it falls under? vs the order to kill a random civilian

More complicated than that.
ex.
They ruled that talking to the DOJ was an official act. And so not only could he not be prosecuted for any actions the DOj took, but the communications of such actions were privileged. Assume he used the DOJ to set you in some way in an action outside his official acts. If the communications were privileged because he was communicating with the DOJ, how would u prove it?

And to your random civilian point. Whether it's a known terrorist or civilian wouldn't matter. The "official act" definition turns on whether he was using his "constitutional and statutory" authority. And since communications between him and DOJ and presumably the Military would be privileged, how would one know the motivations of his "official act"?

raumdeuter:


That is why the SCOTUS is telling the lower courts to differentiate which is official and which is not

Or what is outrageous about this ruling? This is a simple common sense ruling

Simply put. There are official duties which are covered and unofficial which are not covered

or should we start trying Presidents who order killing terrorists for murder because we are pretending not to know what is official and what is not official?

so the document case is dead?

ijebosb:
More complicated than that.
ex.
They ruled that talking to the DOJ was an official act. And so not only could he not be prosecuted for any actions the DOj took, but the communications of such actions were privileged. Assume he used the DOJ to set you in some way in an action outside his official acts. If the communications were privileged because he was communicating with the DOJ, how would u prove it?
And to your random civilian point. Whether it's a known terrorist or civilian wouldn't matter. The "official act" definition turns on whether he was using his "constitutional and statutory" authority. And since communications between him and DOJ and presumably the Military would be privileged, how would one know the motivations of his "official act"?

That argument s not for SCOTUS to be dissecting what is official and what is not official. That is left for prosecutor, defence and lower courts
What SCOTUS put out is that there are official acts which are covered and unofficial acts which are not covered. This is the most straightforward explanation

If I ask you. Are all acts by presidents covered under immunity? What will be your response?

raumdeuter:


That is why the SCOTUS is telling the lower courts to differentiate which is official and which is not

Or what is outrageous about this ruling? This is a simple common sense ruling

Simply put. There are official duties which are covered and unofficial which are not covered

or should we start trying Presidents who order killing terrorists for murder because we are pretending not to know what is official and what is not official?

It isn't. Let's not support what is not right. This is a very very wrong ruling which will indirectly turn the US into a dictatorship.

A President tomorrow can decide not to leave government because "it is official act". Isn't it?

A former president told state "Inec" to find votes for him, A former president told his supporters to invade the capital and stop the steal. Actions that are purely inlegal yet you are trying to claim it isn't an avenue for Dictatorship

bemeruca:
so the document case is dead?

It depends on what the prosecutor, defence and lower court are able to decide.

What SCOTUS simply said is there are official acts which are covered and unofficial acts which are not covered. Now you go clarify every single case on which is official and which isnt Simple