> So there can be no such thing as an "illegal" or "invalid" prosecution. The President can prosecute whomever, whyever He chooses, however unfounded or "malicious" the basis for those prosecutions might be.
Based on the screenshot you shared, it seems that what is covered is deciding whether or not to prosecute crimes that have been committed. Choosing to have someone prosecuted when they haven't truly committed a crime, especially when you know they haven't committed a crime, doesn't seem to be covered in the #SCOTUS ruling, at least based on what you've shared here.
> I think that's pretty fucking scary
Why? This should only be scary if you're worried about certain criminals being prosecuted. Why shouldn't certain people who have committed crimes be punished if #POTUS wants them to be?
> If you think absolute immunity for even malicious prosecution is fine and dandy
I don't, which is why as of yet I don't have a problem with this ruling. Malicious prosecution isn't included in the ruling, only prosecution in pursuit of making sure that the law is being followed is protected in the #SCOTUS ruling.
realcaseyrollins ✝️ /
npub19g…cx4p4
2024-07-09 01:23:28
in reply to nevent1q…r3tr
Author Public Key
npub19gvf2pju7j66w8t34gvhhyr0du708llt9u9ns0605xy8vhs2a22qlcx4p4Published at
2024-07-09 01:23:28Event JSON
{
"id": "3a08acd8ab5d0a81bd18fa0eb4722830be80a4d19aed0e4a9bb1dc12d1706cc8",
"pubkey": "2a1895065cf4b5a71d71aa197b906f6f3cf3ffeb2f0b383f4fa188765e0aea94",
"created_at": 1720488208,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"potus"
],
[
"e",
"d49d4a51f29ddd7b7a6c0bf9b976c0cbbbd9b33c448eeebce6e23d39ae87196a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"p",
"a856d220a92a9449ad661808e334bfb5e230e9d049c21572bb8a11f4fc951c37"
],
[
"p",
"f3ac4d5a9430e81c43754953bcd4db9defe68e218bcf0db440faa7d6b70fb940"
],
[
"p",
"d47ea77b264de373fd40ed02e3a492f45df5f92d3415af78cbabc37283411acd"
],
[
"p",
"a47f0fbd67b7b88f76d06d544b0df5bbc600c938274b0ab6a59f6e19e8c9957e"
],
[
"p",
"e98bb6b76cd12e46e8bb4c9efba02c5133cde99904ef1507252fdeb6bb339dd9"
],
[
"p",
"2a1895065cf4b5a71d71aa197b906f6f3cf3ffeb2f0b383f4fa188765e0aea94"
],
[
"e",
"13bde0d3d10ca3b6e1df24fa34c20ebf546c62cee07e91941f98e636c040bd6b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"t",
"scotus"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://social.teci.world/objects/f21b9338-347b-4689-9b69-8eaef1703df6",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://social.teci.world/objects/f21b9338-347b-4689-9b69-8eaef1703df6",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"expiration",
"1723080210"
]
],
"content": "\u003e So there can be no such thing as an \"illegal\" or \"invalid\" prosecution. The President can prosecute whomever, whyever He chooses, however unfounded or \"malicious\" the basis for those prosecutions might be.\n\nBased on the screenshot you shared, it seems that what is covered is deciding whether or not to prosecute crimes that have been committed. Choosing to have someone prosecuted when they haven't truly committed a crime, especially when you know they haven't committed a crime, doesn't seem to be covered in the #SCOTUS ruling, at least based on what you've shared here.\n\n\u003e I think that's pretty fucking scary\n\nWhy? This should only be scary if you're worried about certain criminals being prosecuted. Why shouldn't certain people who have committed crimes be punished if #POTUS wants them to be?\n\n\u003e If you think absolute immunity for even malicious prosecution is fine and dandy\n\nI don't, which is why as of yet I don't have a problem with this ruling. Malicious prosecution isn't included in the ruling, only prosecution in pursuit of making sure that the law is being followed is protected in the #SCOTUS ruling.",
"sig": "ba69585fb583365e212f8df81a0bccd2657561bbf1b0bc5fc662955c495543611e568445f30f10146089a4ae8d81fc4b24a2143ace073f1860f6ddddc5cc58db"
}