Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assasinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?

“That could well be an official act,” Trump lawyer John Sauer says

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    You know, I’m honestly not sure why everyone’s thinking this is part of some plan for the future they have. Fuckhead was already president. Given this guy’s track record, it’s far more likely that he didn’t get to finish covering his ass for something the first time around.

    Any likely candidates that disappeared 2016-2020?

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    She should have asked about assassinating “corrupt” Supreme Court justices, in case some of her colleagues need to connect the dots.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The argument has been that the president can be charged, but only after they’re impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. And in the meantime, they’re still president. So theoretically they could continue to have House members assassinated until there isn’t enough votes to impeach. And theoretically they could also assassinate Senators until there aren’t enough votes to convict. And I really don’t understand why no one’s making that argument to the Court, because that’s exactly where the “they can kill anyone who disagrees with me because they’re obviously a political rival” argument leads.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Or, they could do one assassination and then step down, thereby dodging any impeachment and being immune to any further litigation.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        And I really don’t understand why no one’s making that argument to the Court

        The argument has been made from the beginning. It’s the whole “Seal Team 6” argument. They may not be saying it outright, but I think everybody understands that everybody on both sides of the argument knows that the argument would also cover a President ordering the assassination of rivals en masse.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Project 2025 anyone…

          Rooting out political enemies from within government being a core part of it?

          No? Anyone? Bueller?

  • Vaquedoso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Watching from an outside of the U.S. perspective, it leaves me speechless seeing how staggering the transition was from ‘bastion of democracy and the free world’ to ‘increasingly malfunctioning society with russian-like values’

      • Ashe@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        The propaganda works though. People outside of the US struggle to see, and believe that the US has its own damning problems. 2 years ago I got close to a Romanian bartender while traveling. She told me about how she held scorn for her sister, who moved to the US despite having been warned against it.

        What happened to her sister is what so many of us are victims of. Debt trapping, stalled wages, poor access to medical care and financial incentive to not seek care. Not to mention the poor quality food that wears you down.

        As a result, she has had to send money to both her sister and Mom, and had to call several contract terms and vacation seasons off to care for her Mother. Her sister couldn’t help due to being in debt, and at risk of losing her job if she were to travel, regardless of the emergency.

        It’s a cruel system that bundles up as an image of living free. The marginally higher standard of living has a lot of cracks, but they’re hard to see until you’re living with them.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Oh this place hasn’t ever been a bastion of democracy. There’s so much inequity, vote surprising, gerrymandering, racial oppression, and straight up lying going on that even we have a hard time figuring out how much of our own history is a thick-ass layer of sugar.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      America has historically been more hype than substance. The more you learn about our history, the thinner that “Bastion of Democracy and Free World” veneer gets.

      We have residents who still remember when it was illegal for black and white people to date. We have “sheriff’s gangs” in major cities, who are indistinguishable from the cartels they’re supposed to police. We literally still have a torture prison on an island we’re functionally at war with, who we can’t put on trial because we broke their brains but we can’t let go because we’re still scared of them.

      Dig into the history and you find out about Nixon’s CIA sending arms to the Khmer Rouge. You learn about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s sex trafficking island. You learn about our century of atrocities in Haiti and Guatemala and Panama. You learn about the Tuskegee Experiments. You learn about that time George Bush Sr set up an teenager to sell a DEA agent crack directly outside the White House for the purpose of inflating fears of a drug epidemic.

      Just really ugly despicable stuff. And its been happening for a long while.

      • Heavybell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Don’t forget, a lot of the early free trade, free press rhetoric was because the US stood to benefit the most from it. Of course the country with mass printing technology wants everyone to be able to buy their printed propaganda. Do they want to share the technology? Not so much.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Hey! They are against universal education. And universal healthcare. These are most anti-russian values I ever seen. I know what I am talking about.

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s almost as if hostile nation states are manipulating public opinion to destabilize western democracies and alliances.

  • elrik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t understand how these absurd arguments aren’t laughed out of court.

    Who is John Sauer and why does anyone take this unfounded nonsense he’s saying seriously?

    • silence7@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      They’re being treated seriously because they’re made by Republicans, who are part of the same patronage machine as the judges.

    • Skeezix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Thats what is most concerning here: not so much the crazy reality that trump’s team is proposing, but the 5 conservative justices that are hand waving it off and are set to send it all back to the lower courts, giving trump the delay he needs.

    • rsuri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Because it’s an opportunity to slow down prosecutions of Trump that the court’s 6-3 Republican majority wants to halt. That and (rampant speculation) I think John Roberts in particular wants to write one of those historical opinions they talk about in law schools, and this is an opportunity to do that given the lack of clarity on presidential powers and immunities.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I don’t get it, are they really arguing that Biden can just have Trump killed? And it would be perfectly legal!

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      No, rules only apply to the out-group.

      If Trump wins the election, the SCOTUS will agree and let Trump do whatever the fuck he wants. If he loses, then SCOTUS will not let the ruling go through. The SCOTUS will conveniently wait until after the election to make a ruling on this.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        This.

        Plus they are arguing this knowing Biden won’t do that and so if it passed then Trump will have free rein if he wins and he will likely try to exercise that option is my guess.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Well no it’s dumber than that. If a president can have sometime killed he could then have someone banished or imprisoned. They’re literally arguing that the argument they’re making is pointless because a president can do whatever they want.

      • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m not sure they can realistically run out that clock. But they can absolutely just ignore a past ruling, if they want. Also, Biden just wouldn’t do that. He’s a shit, in a lot of ways, but not that kind of shit. Buuut the important point is that this argument is effective, accurate or not. Scare the MAGAts about what Biden, or, say, a future President Alexandria Ocasio Cortez might do. It doesn’t have to be a realistic threat, just play into their existing narrative.

  • Baphomet_The_Blasphemer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Are these people really this fucking stupid? If the sitting president has total immunity and having political rivals killed is an “offical” act, then what’s stopping Biden from having Trump executed?

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Biden should just send Seal Team 6 to whatever courthouse Trump’s hush money trial is at and tell them to sit on the steps. If anyone asks why they’re there, just saying “Waiting for the Supreme Court ruling”. Maybe park another team on the Supreme Court steps with a sign that says “Waiting for Clarence Thomas.”

    Biden would not be committing an illegal act. He’d be ordering the teams to sit on the steps and wait. Further orders would only come after the Supreme Court ruling, so Biden would be covered by the very same Presidential immunity that Trump just fought for.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      While funny to imagine…please let’s not. I got a kid to raise, I don’t want to raise one in a civil war. I know for sure some of the “SEAL team 6” members wouldn’t very much like being turned on government officials, especially if their politics align.

    • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      He pretty much has to, or else Trump will imprison him an execute him in the next 12 months.

      I mean shit, if I knew there was a fifty percent chance my neighbor would kidnap and murder me in the next year… I’d be making contingency plans.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Unfortunately that’s not how Democrats work. For good or for bad they stick to morality (except when it comes to Israel for God knows what reason) and they’ll take the “high road” that just so happens to lead off a cliff, but it’s the high road so they need to take it even if it means their certain death.

        We’re a joke, doomed to die for the sake of the moral high ground that we have no right to even assume we have (see previous Isreal comment.)

        • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I sort of agree, but at some point, Biden has to understand his own self, and his family, and all the colleagues he has worked with in his career are at risk. Trump is seriously escalating a dangerous game that only SCOTUS or Biden can put an end to. Politics is eventually violence, and Biden must know that.

          Trump is hiring expensive, smart people, to argue at the last peaceful authority in the country, that he will regain the power of judge jury and executioner. This is fucking chilling.

          • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            This should help left leaning voters reconsider gun restriction laws since most of them are enforced in blue areas, while red areas are all allowed to have essentially entire armories.

            If you live in New York or California, you can’t find a gun store within 100 miles that can only sell extremely restrictive features, but in Idaho and Texas there’s a gun store on every fucking corner selling easy to shoot highly ergonomic firearms that allow morbidly obese boomers to effortlessly hit the dick off a fly at 1000 meters.

            • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Biden actually has control of the arsenal.

              Unless you are a leftist, committed to dying in a revolution, there’s no comparison to Biden’s position. Clinton and Obama? Maybe

            • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Begging to differ, I’m sitting on my toilet in California and a quick Google shows there’s 3 gun stores within 5 miles of me. I’d have to pass the legitimate restrictions (which I easily could) and one of them looks very upscale and expensive, but physical access is not a problem at all.

              • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Fair point, but I’m sure you are only able to be sold a very specific set of authorized firearms, that when compared to what similar stores in other states happen to also sell; will reveal the differences are orders of magnitude.

                Case in point: a Cali compliant AR-15 is a horrible thing to shoot (I own this one).

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago
      1. Conservative justices rule that the president is immune from prosecution

      2. President has conservative justices assassinated

      3. President appoints more progressive justices

      4. Progressive judges reverse ruling

      Would the president be liable for the prior assassinations at that point?

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    In another hypothetical, Justice Elena Kagan asked if the president would be immune from prosecution if he sold nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.

    In February, D.C.’s Federal Court of Appeals summarily rejected the arguments made by Trump’s attorneys — including that the president would be protected from prosecution even if he had his political opponents assassinated.

    The three-judge panel unanimously determined that Trump is not shielded from prosecution for potential crimes committed in office related to the subversion of the 2020 election.

    Trump has long been ranting about the matter in his public statements and on social media, effectively making the immunity issue a plank of his presidential campaign.

    Despite Trump’s public insistence that he deserves widespread immunity, his own legal team seems prepared to have their claims rejected by the highest court in the land.

    “We already pulled off the heist,” one source close to Trump said, adding that regardless of what the court decides, they’ve already managed to severely stall the DOJ’s election interference case.


    The original article contains 806 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It’s just bizarre to listen to…

    Kagan: If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?

    Sauer: If it’s structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Sauer: If it’s structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.

      Alright you goddamn fascist enabler, explain how the fuck breaking the law either by stealing nuclear secrets or assassinating political opponents could be “structured as an official act.” Explain the exact case law and legal mechanisms that explicitly give the office of the President this authority. And then, while you’re exhaling the CO2 that some poor plant is gonna have to clean up, explain how private citizen Donald Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted for committing these acts while he wasn’t in office.

      You fucking jackass.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          There is a law that describes the process. And it exists for exactly this reason: there is no evidence the files Trump stole had been declassified, and by the time it was discovered he had them he was no longer occupying the office.

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The very next question should have been “And if he has 1/2 of the House of Representatives killed at the same time?”

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s the only argument he can make. If he makes any other argument, his position on complete and total immunity is dead on the spot, as he would be conceding that the President isn’t completely and totally immune after all.

      Any concession, no matter how ridiculous the example, would invalidate his entire case immediately and he knows it. And if you ever hear him say “He would have to be impeached and convicted first”, you’ll know that he damn well knows how ridiculous his own arguments sound.

      Judge: If President Trump were to run around the White House naked with a rubber glove on his head yelling ‘Hi, I’m a squid! Nuke Montana so I can take out my rival octopus and his herd of glitter cows!’, would that be an official act he would have immunity under?

      Sauer: If it’s structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.

      Doesn’t matter what scenario you put there. Sauer’s options are to repeat that line or essentially lose the case.

  • silence7@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Right now, it’s looking like the Supreme Court is going to say “that’s not allowed” but do it in a way that prevents Trump from being tried before the election. This lets them say “we’re good and ethical” while protecting Trump from the consequences of his criminality:

    The Supreme Court appeared poised to reject Donald Trump’s sweeping claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election, but in a way that is likely to significantly delay his stalled election-interference trial in D.C.

    • Dragomus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Well before this hearing I had the impression this SC is looking for ways to stack delay on delay without taking too much flak themselves. It showed in the weird narrow beam wording of their restrictions when they took on this case. It showed in the extra weeks they took to plan this hearing. And it is now showing in the questions they ask …

      I will not be surprised if they proclaim “a president has no total immunity, and only immunity in presidential matters, but the lower courts need to figure out if Trump’s actions were (for) personal (gain) or presidential.”

      And with that the ball is dropped and it rolled in a sewage drain where it’s hard to reach before the elections are in the rear view mirror.

      It even includes another time loop for when it eventually does resurface back on the SC’s lap for them to decide if his actions were presidential.

      But by that time there will be a “Year one Dictator”, proclaiming himself to be America’s first great dictator, while ordering his rivals to be imprisoned, indicted and or shot.

      And the people will loudly wonder, “Who is there to stop him? Where are the checks and balances?” But loudly will turn into a whimper then a whisper until it is a small voice in an empty room.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, if he announces he is a dictator I’m going to start firebombing republican owned properties. There will be no point in upholding day-to-day life. This isn’t something we can stand by and let happen. All women will become a slave caste and democracy will end as well. Trump cannot be allowed to take office again by any means necessary. Its that dire.

  • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    “The most powerful person in the world could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

    Hard to make any disincentive when the ones running for office are in the twilight of their lives. If only there were any choice to the matter.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    You know. If I was an asshole puppeteer who held trump’s strings….

    I’d get myself a new puppet, then make this argument, maybe then do a false flag and have the trump-puppet executed in a manner that looks like Biden had it done….

    Something to think about.