Remember, he is only immune for official acts. And the courts reserved the right to determine if an act is official. I think they could easily say that openly defying the courts ruling is not an official act. They will wait for something bigger I suspect, but the supreme court judges love power just as much as trump. They are probably excited by the prospect of expanding thier power by giving trump the boot.

I love how yhe headline makes it sound like trump kmows how to operate a computer. Cause my first thought was, did he do it intentionally. Lol

This is the truth of it. Picking up $100 bill off the ground in public that isn’t yours isn’t actually illegal. And what trump is doing is attempting to stretch the powers of his office. This isn’t anything new really. Just how he is doing it, how much and how fast is new.

Did you actually read that. A lot of “potentially”, “possibly” and things like that. In short, it isn’t all that clear cut.

Which laws. Cause I haven’t seen any quoted anywhere. And, they only gave him immunity for official acts. Then said they (the courts) get to decide what an official act is. Lastly, they did not take away congress’s ability to prosecute him in the form of impeachment.

What was illegal about what musk did? Be specific. On paper he is “working” for the president, and my understanding is that the cabinet members in charge of the various agencies gave him the go ahead to do what he is doing. Both of those are directly or indirectly elected officials charged with running the executive branch of the government. My take is that congress has depended on gentleman’s agreements rather than passing laws to ensure the agencies aren’t tampered with like is happening now.

What is the legal argument against this? The article was paywalled, but the summay only says that past presidents have respected agency independence. That sounds like just a gentlemans agreement. Nothing legally binding. So do the challenges have a leg to stand on?