Speaking as a semanticist, it's wild to me that they are phrasing it in terms of whether an *act* is characterized as "official", when what they seem to actually be talking about is whether there exists a *description* of the act that can be characterized as "official".

Ok uh what else is an official act but one with a description under which it's official? There's no access to acts but via descriptions

And the acceptance of that description shall be the under the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court only, on a case by case basis, making prosecutions take as long or as short as these 6 six individuals desire. Iran’s Guardian Council must be their model.

Can we absolutely rule out the possibility that there’s an element of rank incompetence at play here?

Brilliantly expressed. Yes.

Exactly! Since they rob us of looking at motive, the intention of the act is fair game for the *defendant*, which is absolutely bonkers to contemplate.

If trump did it : its official If any other president did anything : its not

“…Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.” Jean-Paul Sartre

you mean a cover story

During his NY trial, he would badmouth the judge’s daughter, get criticized for it, and then his defenders would say “What? Can’t he talk to his supporters??” This is just the Supreme Court version of that

What is the outcome or sequence after “the act”? If it lines the SCOTUS cabal’s pockets its “official”.