Justice Barrett’s comments have created a critical, largely overlooked opening for Democrats and their Special Counsel. Barrett hinted that if prosecutors concentrate exclusively on Trump’s private acts, they might succeed in their legal efforts against him.

Hardly a trojan horse. She is basically spelling out that private acts are not covered under immunity. They can go after his private acts if they want, and they have been doing it for the past 7 years and this is all they could come up with.

This part of the ruling is what terrifies the Lefties. Because the stuff done by a lot of other presidents (think about the $85K worth of hotdogs from chicago) are what Amy is pointing out are not covered.

Sotomayor "the wise Latina" is dangerous because she's so exceptionally stupid.

Coney Barret is dangerous because she's so exceptionally smart.

I remember ACB's conformation hearings, being dazzled by her effortless recall and command of the nuances of specific cases before the court, and her holding up a blank notepad after being asked what notes she was referring to is seared on my memory forever.

Frens on GAW were cheering this paragon of judicial wisdom that our own DJT nominated; she was going to crush the commies into oblivion. (remember that?) "She's on our side! Hooray!," we said.

But was she? Is she? Many of our little voices inside asked. We'd all been tricked before, you see.

But the euphoria! We finally clocked a "W" for our side! Let freedom and justice prevail!

As time has worn on, I, and I'm sure many others, wish they had listened more to the little voice.....

I don't think Barret's little caveat is intended for Trump.

They can't give blanket immunity and still get Obama, Clinton, and Bush. The unofficial acts of those three like weaponizing the IRS, and sending illegal arms to Mexico are outside their official duties as President. The loop hole to go after the real criminals cannot be closed.

https://archive.ph/aLVfR

"When Trump was questioning the accuracy of the vote count, was he doing it in his capacity as the U.S. President or as a candidate running for office?"

Turns out, both can be true at the same time. It is not an either or.

I don't trust her and her "7 dwarves" from Haiti isn't normal in the real world...

by using "special counsel" eh?

As soon as the SC mentioned UNOFFICIAL ACTS not being covered under presidential immunity, I knew exactly who they were addressing.

Logic chain summary of recent SCOTUS rulings:

1. W. Virginia v EPA (2022): Admin courts are unconstitutional, all Article II agencies must use Article III judiciary to enforce laws (applies to IRS, reinforced by SEC v Jarkesy) [stripping of enforcement mechanism for ~95% of Fed gov’t]

2. Chevron Doctrine overturned (6-28-24): Article II rules and regulations are not laws, but are now “UNOFFICIAL ACTS” [stripping of authority for ~95% Fed gov’t]

3. Trump Immunity Decision (7-1-24): Executive branch has zero immunity for “UNOFFICIAL ACTS”, and individuals may be prosecuted personally for civil and criminal fraud when performing “UNOFFICIAL ACTS” while working in official capacity. [stripping of immunity for ~95% of Fed gov’t]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-sec-jarkesy-securities-fraud/

BIG TAKEAWAY: If you are currently a Federal employee and you attempt to enforce ANY non LAW, you are probably going to prison, but expect to be sued for Civil Fraud at a minimum and pay out-of-pocket 3x actual and 200x punitive damages (statutory fraud penalties)

Note that fraud has no statute of limitations so we will be very busy for the next 20 years suing 2024 Federal workers (post 6-28-24 acts) into oblivion and putting them in prison (Looking at you new, armed IRS agents).