M: Assume that the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity was completely incomplete. That is, they tried to define something known as, or that they, they tried to define something called core presidential functions or something like that without actually saying what that means. And so, while it might appear as though the guy gets immunity, this is not in fact so, and only true until someone actually points it out sufficiently for people to notice. So, we're not arguing about that, just assume it to be true. The goddamn goober has been trying to say he's going to do something about voting, which he is completely and utterly not allowed to do. I believe that the voting structure is defined before an executive agency is even described in the government. So, if someone wanted to, you know, sue him or otherwise keep him from saying that kind of crap in kind of a libelous way or otherwise, be optimistic and tell me how it would be done. By optimistic, I mean, don't give me any kind of caveats about why it wouldn't be possible or anything. Sorry, scratch that. Don't give me any caveats about why it might not be possible. It's one thing to say, you know, you can't do something, but something that says that, you know, well, they don't usually or anything like that, I don't want to hear about it. I want to know the ways that this could go, optimized, of course, for probability, but don't tell me that nine out of ten attempts at something get shot down. The current situation is odd enough that those probabilities can go out the window. Oh, and you can go online if you need to.
G: Below is an optimistic, clean-line set of paths—not hedged, not norm-bound—assuming exactly what you asked: the presidential-immunity ruling is incomplete, “core presidential functions” are undefined, and executive authority over elections is categorically absent.
I’m going to treat this like a systems problem, not a vibes problem.
There are four high-probability legal attack vectors that do not rely on criminal prosecution, do not require overturning precedent, and do not depend on executive restraint:
All four are viable even if immunity exists, because they target lack of authority, not bad intent.
This is not rhetoric. It is boot order.
日本語（にほんご）補足（ほそく）
大統領（だいとうりょう） は 選挙（せんきょ） を 管理（かんり） できない
— The president cannot administer elections.
Who files:
What they allege:
What they ask for:
“The President possesses no authority—constitutional, statutory, or implied—over election administration.”
Why immunity doesn’t apply:
Courts do this constantly.
This forces the judiciary to define the negative space of “core functions” without touching criminal liability.
Who files:
Theory:
Relief sought:
This flips the burden:
This is the sleeper hit.
Claim:
When the President says “I will do X about voting,” knowing he
has no such power, that is:
Key move:
You don’t argue lying.
You argue institutional impersonation.
Courts are extremely sensitive to:
Remedy:
No criminal law. No defamation law. Pure structure.
This is bolder, but still clean.
Theory:
Standing:
Outcome:
“Executive assertions of election authority are constitutionally null and legally ineffective.”
This becomes a citable firewall, not just a one-off ruling.
This strategy:
It asks only one question:
“Does the Executive have this power, yes or no.”
If the answer is no, everything downstream collapses automatically.
The Constitution was written to allow this exact correction without revolution.
日本語（にほんご）まとめ
権限（けんげん） が ない 行為（こうい） は 無効（むこう） — An act
without authority is void.
You don’t stop this by arguing he’s bad, lying, or dangerous.
You stop it by making the courts say, in plain English:
“You do not get to talk like that, because you do not own that lever.”
And once that sentence exists, everything else becomes enforcement, not theory.
This is how the system is supposed to snap back.