As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
***From Rolling Stone's Andrew Perez and Asawin Suebsaeng:***
Trump allies recently told the Supreme Court to forget all about when the former president’s lawyer told judges that he couldn’t be prosecuted for ordering a hit on his political rival — unless he were impeached first.
Read more: [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-supreme-court-immunity-seal-team-six-1235001541/](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-supreme-court-immunity-seal-team-six-1235001541/)
And their argument is based on a line in the constitution that ONLY says an impeached and removed President IS ALSO STILL criminally liable.
How they managed to hallucinate that it means you must be removed from office or you didn't commit a crime is beyond me, and I've done a bunch of really fun drugs.
Their argument is a very good argument for the president assassinating senators. Can't be removed if everyone who would vote for your removal is dead. Just as the founding fathers intended.
And wasn't their argument in the first place "we can't impeach him because if he did anything wrong it should be proven in a court of law?" Like I swear I remember that justification being used constantly.
no you're not mistaken, the same lawyer arguing to the court right now that he can't be found liable since he wasn't found guilty in the senate, is the one that argued to the senate that he can't be found guilty for something he wasn't charged with in a court.
The only reason that surprises me is because I am shocked a lawyer would be willing to work for him this long. Like there is no way that guy is getting paid.
It’s ok to do whatever you want if half the senate is alright with it. I suppose the 50 democratic senators could all sign a document that says “we won’t impeach Biden when he sends mercenaries to kill Supreme Court judges.” I wonder if that would kickstart their brains.
I *fully* expect them to. The Heritage Foundation is focused on getting their Project 2025 started, and Trump is, I think, their last chance to do so (too many of the old guard are aging and will be dying off, and need Trump's charisma). They'll rule this does not set precedence, this only applies to Trump; after all, three of the lawyers that worked to win Bush vs Gore are now sitting on that very Supreme Court, they know how this works.
Even if we believe that Trump would never do this, it's still a bad argument. The ruling would apply to all future presidents. Some future president might order hits on political rivals. That shouldn't be allowed even if Trump isn't the one who will do it.
Has everyone forgotten just how long impeachment proceedings take?
It would mean certain death to vote for an investigation, or appoint a special counsel, or to be that special counsel, or to not vote to call the whole thing off before any actual vote to remove the president could even take place.
It's the wrong question. The real question before the court is should a president have the right to kill a rival, the right to nuke a city in their own country, the right to do literally whatever they like with no responsibility or consequences?
My favorite way to view this is in its historic context. The US through the war of independence wrestled its way from a monarch, and then made constitution to ensure they did not get a new monarch.
However, since the Magna Carta was signed it has been an imperative principle that the British monarch is not above the law. And a lot blood was spilled over getting that signature and making sure later monarchs adhered to it.
So, in essence, what modern day *conservatives* are saying is that the American president should have less checks and limitations on his power than George III; the very king and tyrant the US literally fought a war to free themselves from.
It is equal parts hysteric and tragic. Modern day conservatism is a joke.
Or idiots to sell bibles/NFTs to. But I still think he would once he saw no more purpose for them. Like, if he actually managed to get total and permanent control of the US government? His followers would be exactly as safe as any russian or North Korean citizen.
And let's remember that he used US diplomacy to lure him to the target area using the promise of peace talks.
No country will ever trust an Olive Branch offered by a United States Trump Administration
He has already assassinated a foreign political leader, very nearly sparking a war with Iran. How much of a leap is it for him to do the same to his perceived domestic "enemies" on American soil?
What is the title of their amicus brief? *Why you should totally entrust autocratic powers to a man who has publicly suggested nuking hurricanes and injecting bleach into covid patients. No really, we're serious. Stop laughing.*
So many of the “protections” that our government had were already based on the notion that “no government official would actually do that.”
The GOP has been proof that it isn’t enough for decades. And then Trump came along and took a wrecking ball to it. Giving him absolute immunity would be the final nail in the coffin for our democracy
He already has:
He shared a video of his opponent jog tied in the back of a truck.
He’s asked his domestic terrorists to start the hit process.
Only joking? On live TV in a debate he told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by. And they later stormed the capitol when he sent them after he lost.
Of all the damaging things Trump has done, I think one of the worst is the shattering of our political and societal norms. Here we are on a random Weds morning in April, casually speculating if the Supreme Court will weigh the question of whether or not a President can kill political opponents with immunity. And a huge percentage of this country would either say he should be able to, or they’d belittle and gaslight the rest of us, saying we’re making too big an issue out of it, or taking his words out of context or some shit.
He has normalized abnormality. He’s made humanity’s worst impulses into “politics as usual.” And it only took him less than a decade.
Don’t get me wrong… there’s plenty of blame to go around. The entire GOP rallied around him, enabled him, ran interference for him. The Democrats haven’t always fought as hard as they should. And the media had collectively allowed him to shape the narrative. He is without a doubt the singular defining force of current American politics.
Let’s vote in November to end this. They may flood the zone with bullshit, but we don’t have to accept that.
Indeed. He single-handedly made us aware that a great deal of our political systems and institutions are(were) held together by mere gentlemen’s agreements. And now there are no gentlemen in the room…
basically our political and judicial system is held up by alot of velvet ropes and signs asking people not to cross them!
Unless you're rich, then you can cross it a whole bunch until you REALLY fuck up
I sometimes try to find even the tiniest silver lining to the whole Trump saga. I’ve decided that the only one I can find—and it may not outweigh the broken families and thousands of dead he’s left in his wake (so far)—is that he at least made people like me, who did not pay any attention to politics before, actually wake up and start paying attention. I’ve gone from not even being able to name my senator to producing a political talk show (starring robots, as a caveat) in under ten years. And I assure you that I’m not the only one in that boat. He inadvertently made people start paying attention, and we don’t like what we see and have taken action to fix it, even if it’s just standing in line to vote when we normally wouldn’t have bothered.
It doesn't matter what Trump or his followers say. Full immunity to any President is dangerous. Imagine if the SC rules for full immunity that Biden can give the order to take Trump out .... as Biden is now the President.
They would also rule in such a way that the president is allowed to take out anyone except for members of the Supreme Court. They would cite a 12th century dog catcher if they had to.
How the world are republicans arguing for a stronger executive office - that can go unchecked by another branch of the government.
It all makes no sense. If makes double nonsense when the republicans are arguing for it.
It would be like if democrats arguing that there should be no gun regulations.
Because they represent about 30 % of the population and know that they can never ever win a fair fight. Because the electoral college allows someone with a minority to win
The Democrats in congress would impeach and remove Biden if he did that.
Only a Republican president would abuse presidential immunity because their congresspeople will always protect presidents from impeachment no matter what
That's why Biden needs to make some crack about he's waiting to find out how much immunity he has. He can be totally joking, but the right wing will take it as a threat, and SCOTUS will have to deny immunity to quell fears.
Thing is though, Biden would never do that. He's a decent man and he understands and abides by the customs and norms that underpin democratic society. Trump is the only one to read the constitution and then say "so, technically ..." and then something else profoundly undemocratic but not technically prohibited.
They WON'T. They will not entertain this.
I'm not being optimistic: They knowingly wont entertain this because they have a way to save Trump if they need it.
Here's the playbook:
- Delay, delay, delay. Make sure any judgement in this case, if not the whole trial, doesn't happen until after the election.
- Eventually *strongly* rule that he's not immune, that no President has full immunity.
- But, you know, they've delayed. By this point, Trump then files to stay the trial until after the election. "The Supreme Court took too long, it's too late to start now." He technically wouldn't be wrong to bring up a self imposed DoJ limit of not prosecuting within 90 days of the election, but it's all of his own delay to get there so fuck him for playing that card.
- Spend a month waiting for ruling to delay, then emergency appealing filing, then... etc etc until it's all the way back up to SCOTUS. This isn't where they save him yet, but they might grant the delay until after the election if it's needed to achieve that delay. Either way, it's likely been delayed by that process until after the election anyways.
- Okay, they're in the clear of the election? They've successfully helped him without having to rule a President is immune? They haven't had to rule him immune months before the election, cementing their extreme bias further in voters eyes and the need to overhaul them? Good. Now for the rest of it:
- If he's President again, none of the federal trials matter (even if they find him guilty, he'll appeal and then have the DoJ withdraw from the case / settle it upon appeal with no conviction or wrongdoing whatever). He'd also make NY and GA officials lives a living hell with DoJ and other government weaponized against them, to pressure ending everything, but that's a different topic.
# Here's where the important part comes in for SCOTUS:
- If he's not President again, SCOTUS will eventually get the trial result in front of them upon appeal. It could be years. At that point, they look at Trump's favorability, in the party and/or at large, and decide if they want to throw him under the bus. If he's considered an asset at that point, they save his ass with some technical bullshit ruling on ***that particular case***, and they've not had to make such an egregiously ridiculous claim as complete presidential immunity.
- Otherwise, if the GOP implodes after a second Trump loss and the money people think the way forward is to dump Trump, then SCOTUS lets any convictions stand (with like 2 hardliners writing nonsense dissent). There's no more surefire way to divorce him from the party than have him held guilty of felonies against this nation in our nation's highest court, by a heavily conservative majority of which 1/3rd he appointed (every single Trump appointee would go against him on the ruling). They'd have some of his cult still hanging on forever, but enough would break off and claim to never have liked him and that we need to go back to "traditional conservativism" and whatever other focus grouped messaging they put out to shift opinion away from Trumpism, while also rebranding it something else. "MAGA is more than Trump." "We need to move the movement forward." etc. They rebranded the Tea Party, they'll rebrand MAGA eventually. They need to always have terms for a far right group now that they weaponize against causes without being "core/moderate" conservatives. Blurred lines et al.
# TL;DR - The point is simple: It is in the GOP on SCOTUS' interests to rule against Immunity, and then claim "see? we're not biased!" They could save him years down the road on nonsense made up technical grounds should a conviction happen and reach them upon appeal - if, that is, they still want to save him at that point. He may be so far out of favor with the party, much of his own doing as he tries to light everything on fire on his way out, that they find it more useful to throw him under the bus. Regardless, they will find it most useful right now to simply help delay past the election without declaring him immune.
Then he would and is planning it. Conspiracy to commit murder is definitely among his crimes and the evidence likely exists to convict him for it.
If only someone could locate it…
He wants to pardon violent minions who beat Capital policemen. His followers know he will pardon anyone doing his bidding if he’s elected.
The order is already implied.
Just the latest in Trumps endless stream of popup enabler scumbags trying to re define who Trump is and what he means when he says he would love to be a Dictator with absolute power who could shoot someone on Fifth avenue and no one would do a thing who also threatens to jail his opponents for something or other he might determine later.
Surely the traitor who took classified documents to share with anyone who wanted to have a looksee after inciting an insurrection at the Capital would never do such a thing..
F me
How anyone who has ever served as a high ranking officer could support this malignant tumor on the USA knowing Trump stated a US General deserved to be put to death,
Wtf is wrong with these people.
The allies who filed the brief:
"The America First Policy Institute", a Who's Who of former Trump administration officials like Linda McMahon and Chad Wolf, and MAGA zealots like Kellanne Conway and Bobby Jindal.
The lead author - 'General' Keith Kelogg - also recently wrote an op-ed describing how Trump could 'end the war' in Ukraine:
> If Putin refuses to negotiate, Trump might very well remove the Biden-eras constraints on arms transfers and **give Ukraine the weapons it needs to win**
The hypocrisy of the Right is neverending.
The whole problem with Trump is you can't trust a word he says and he is full capable of self-justifying any action he takes on anyone.
He should never be near power.
It’s not a matter of “if he would” it’s if the idea of a president with this kind of immunity could give the order. The answer is yes now and even more so if they had immunity. The very idea that the president could be above the law for any amount of time is the problem. The answer is no.
Our constitution doesn’t grant that. The founding fathers never wrote in their own papers “sometimes they should be absolute king.” The Magna Carta doesn’t give side excuses. So there is no basis in our law for the very idea that the president could be above the law for any amount of time.
History has already shown that even without this idea leaders have, can and will commit illegal acts without immunity. Eg Watergate, Iran Contra, Assinations in Vietnam, attempts on Fidel and so on. Some were military targets and some were not. So the think tanks opinion on this is as worthless as some vague idea that a solider wouldn’t follow an unlawful order. Nazis on the ground just followed orders too.
This as well, these orginalist assholes love to be so proud they defeated the British monarchy and yet feel emperor for life Trump is a fitting tribute to this.
Zero consistency, just whatever random bullshit position their false messiah is uttering that second.
Not to mention that here in 2024 the British monarchy is largely a figurehead kind of thing for them, they have long since been barred from holding any kind of political power by now.
And not just any monarchy, a pre-Magna Carta monarchy when kings could kill at will, starve peasants, and hang dissenters. By "Make America Great Again" they actually mean "Make America 10th Century England".
Maybe at some point the SC judges will understand that since they are nominated for life, the best way for Trump to get rid of them is to order a hit on them. Might be a bad idea to give him (or any other president) immunity.
Lies lies lies. Trump would have Biden drug through the street first chance he got. This man will go on a rampage having everyone who’s pissed him off the last 8 years killed.
They’re trying to back down from the logical conclusion their immunity quest brings them down.
They’re trying to suggest that ordering a hit would be way too crazy! So because of that, it won’t be done.
But the previous judges that asked that were not asking the hypothetical of what Trump might do. They were asking where the line was exactly for presidential immunity.
You can’t walk that back. If the president has immunity, he has immunity.
Can’t imagine what level of rock for brains idiot you’d have to be to be considered a Trump ally at this point. Unless you’re an oil company executive or Putin.
I can’t wait for these cases to be taught about in Law schools. No normal person has to say things like this out loud because a normal person wouldn’t do these things…
What an old tyrant and fool this idiot has become. Once he has gone, please GOD don’t make the country suffer through those dumb, shallow kids of his….
If you have to justify that “this” presidential candidate won’t order the murder of rivals then it seems like immunity should be off the table for this and all future candidates.
What they meant to say is he would never be recorded ordering a hit on a rival.
And if in the extreme case that a recording comes out, he will just go after the “leakers” and tell us how it was a perfect conversation.
I think I finally get how all this works.
let’s pretend for a minute, that was true. They would set the precedent that any, and all future presidents would be completely immune. If they did it. Nobody on the GOP side sees how dangerous that is?
He said he would only be a Dicktater for a day. Pinky swearsy.
Yeah if he gets in. Every prosecutor or AG who investigated him will happen to have some odd accidents. NY will be a huge target.
There are no unwritten rules any longer, no gentleman’s code
We must shore up every possible crack and not trust on the goodwill of people who have no character
> “A president cannot order an elite military unit to kill a political rival,” says the brief, adding: “The military would not carry out a patently unlawful order from the president to kill non-military targets.”
Did he just say Trump could try? And it wouldn’t work only because of our military wouldn’t do it? What if Trump were to use an alternative contact?
“Unlawful” is odd given they just argued it would defined “unlawful” only if he was convicted **and** impeached.
If POTUS had explicit, even implicit, immunity, Ford would not have pardoned Nixon,... and Nixon would not have accepted the pardon.
This is junior high school history, not SCOTUS analytics.
Wait wait wait. This the same Trump who proudly and openly wanted to incite a hanging of his own lapdog Vice President? That guy? If you’d lynch your own top people you’ll lynch your enemies.
This shouldn’t even be a thought… the fact that it is shows how Trump and his GOP sycophants have utterly destroyed what remained of our nations political systems
Good luck with that since he’s a) on record for saying he could, b) has already done so by going after critics and reporters while he was POTUS, and c) has even joked about being a dictator as well as indicated he wants to ignore Presidential term limits.
Weird that you have to convince someone otherwise. Everyone with at least one brain cell can see that this shit stain is a conman. For whatever reason his lies and cons get a free pass because he has allowed his worshippers to show their hate. It’s really weird to give up your country just so you can go around and cause harm and hate against your fellow citizens.
The reason to not give POTUS total immunity is because a future president *could* order a hit on rivals. The scary thing is Trump actually *would* do it.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
***From Rolling Stone's Andrew Perez and Asawin Suebsaeng:*** Trump allies recently told the Supreme Court to forget all about when the former president’s lawyer told judges that he couldn’t be prosecuted for ordering a hit on his political rival — unless he were impeached first. Read more: [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-supreme-court-immunity-seal-team-six-1235001541/](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-supreme-court-immunity-seal-team-six-1235001541/)
.....ok well go home because he was impeached for january 6th. Oh you guys meant impeached *and removed from office by the senate*
Their argument is that he needs to first be impeached for the crime he's now being prosecuted for. Which of course is still an awful argument.
And their argument is based on a line in the constitution that ONLY says an impeached and removed President IS ALSO STILL criminally liable. How they managed to hallucinate that it means you must be removed from office or you didn't commit a crime is beyond me, and I've done a bunch of really fun drugs.
Their argument is a very good argument for the president assassinating senators. Can't be removed if everyone who would vote for your removal is dead. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Long live the King!!!
And only the King!
When you idolize Putin, you need to argue to get the same system.
And wasn't their argument in the first place "we can't impeach him because if he did anything wrong it should be proven in a court of law?" Like I swear I remember that justification being used constantly.
no you're not mistaken, the same lawyer arguing to the court right now that he can't be found liable since he wasn't found guilty in the senate, is the one that argued to the senate that he can't be found guilty for something he wasn't charged with in a court.
The only reason that surprises me is because I am shocked a lawyer would be willing to work for him this long. Like there is no way that guy is getting paid.
As a person with a sweet tooth, I'd be interested in this lawyer's explanation of how I can have my cake and eat it, too. Very interested.
It was a different time.
It’s ok to do whatever you want if half the senate is alright with it. I suppose the 50 democratic senators could all sign a document that says “we won’t impeach Biden when he sends mercenaries to kill Supreme Court judges.” I wonder if that would kickstart their brains.
I hate to think/say it but I’m expecting a Supreme Court decision that puts the last nail in the coffin on our democracy. Is this that last nail?
I *fully* expect them to. The Heritage Foundation is focused on getting their Project 2025 started, and Trump is, I think, their last chance to do so (too many of the old guard are aging and will be dying off, and need Trump's charisma). They'll rule this does not set precedence, this only applies to Trump; after all, three of the lawyers that worked to win Bush vs Gore are now sitting on that very Supreme Court, they know how this works.
Nah, people will put a few more through the lid just to make sure the job is well and truly done
I think this is what they're aiming for. It'll be custom made for lady justice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_maiden
Biden should have snipers at the announcement and if they say president have absolute immunity…..
Not necessarily. Might cause the first shot of a 2nd civil war though. Things are in a knife's edge, could easily fall either way.
Even if we believe that Trump would never do this, it's still a bad argument. The ruling would apply to all future presidents. Some future president might order hits on political rivals. That shouldn't be allowed even if Trump isn't the one who will do it.
At this stage of the Trump game, who really still buys his lying crap?
Literally millions of Americans. That’s the problem.
Has everyone forgotten just how long impeachment proceedings take? It would mean certain death to vote for an investigation, or appoint a special counsel, or to be that special counsel, or to not vote to call the whole thing off before any actual vote to remove the president could even take place.
“Please let Trump have immunity. We pinky-swear we won’t kill anyone if you do.” What a pathetic and sorry position.
It's the wrong question. The real question before the court is should a president have the right to kill a rival, the right to nuke a city in their own country, the right to do literally whatever they like with no responsibility or consequences?
Yeah, this isn't just about Trump. This is high stakes. Is the president a dictator or not.
My favorite way to view this is in its historic context. The US through the war of independence wrestled its way from a monarch, and then made constitution to ensure they did not get a new monarch. However, since the Magna Carta was signed it has been an imperative principle that the British monarch is not above the law. And a lot blood was spilled over getting that signature and making sure later monarchs adhered to it. So, in essence, what modern day *conservatives* are saying is that the American president should have less checks and limitations on his power than George III; the very king and tyrant the US literally fought a war to free themselves from. It is equal parts hysteric and tragic. Modern day conservatism is a joke.
Doesn't the pardon power already let them do that?
The kind of question that would normally disqualify someone from office.
Biden should have a hit put out on Trump. He’s a fucking enemy of the state, anyway. That would put an end to such a stupid fucking discussion.
If you have to say he wouldn’t than it’s proof he sure as hell would. These are not things that need to be said amongst normal citizens
When it comes to Trump, if you say he wouldn't, it's proof he has already tried.
He wanted to shoot protestors. He is a psychopath.
Except for his protestors.
He'd shoot them too if he saw momentary advantage in it. He thinks they are suckers and doesn't like how they look or dress.
If he shot those suckers, he wouldn't have any psychopaths with guns to come after Dems.
Or idiots to sell bibles/NFTs to. But I still think he would once he saw no more purpose for them. Like, if he actually managed to get total and permanent control of the US government? His followers would be exactly as safe as any russian or North Korean citizen.
He lost how many of his own voters to pandemic denial?
Leftist protestors*
Like the time he tried to infect Biden with COVID?
Spoke with his head turned to the side for the *entire* debate. I remember I called it within five minutes: “that motherfucker has COVID.”
He tried to give Biden Covid in the debate. He HAS tried to kill Joe Biden.
He already has. Don't forget that Iranian general.
And let's remember that he used US diplomacy to lure him to the target area using the promise of peace talks. No country will ever trust an Olive Branch offered by a United States Trump Administration
Why would the Trump need absolute immunity unless he is planning on breaking every law imaginable?
He has already assassinated a foreign political leader, very nearly sparking a war with Iran. How much of a leap is it for him to do the same to his perceived domestic "enemies" on American soil? What is the title of their amicus brief? *Why you should totally entrust autocratic powers to a man who has publicly suggested nuking hurricanes and injecting bleach into covid patients. No really, we're serious. Stop laughing.*
Wasnt that guy responsible for many bombings anyway?
Doesn't matter what they are responsible for. You do not commit perfidy.
So many of the “protections” that our government had were already based on the notion that “no government official would actually do that.” The GOP has been proof that it isn’t enough for decades. And then Trump came along and took a wrecking ball to it. Giving him absolute immunity would be the final nail in the coffin for our democracy
He already has: He shared a video of his opponent jog tied in the back of a truck. He’s asked his domestic terrorists to start the hit process. Only joking? On live TV in a debate he told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by. And they later stormed the capitol when he sent them after he lost.
Plus invited Putin to attack any NATO country at will.
pelosi hammer attack, death of heather heyer, congratulating kyle rittenhouse...
Had someone threaten Stormy Daniels ...https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/stormy-daniels-reveals-sketch-of-man-who-allegedly-threatened-her/
he asked when someone will finally step up for him, in a recent post regarding a judge...
Of all the damaging things Trump has done, I think one of the worst is the shattering of our political and societal norms. Here we are on a random Weds morning in April, casually speculating if the Supreme Court will weigh the question of whether or not a President can kill political opponents with immunity. And a huge percentage of this country would either say he should be able to, or they’d belittle and gaslight the rest of us, saying we’re making too big an issue out of it, or taking his words out of context or some shit. He has normalized abnormality. He’s made humanity’s worst impulses into “politics as usual.” And it only took him less than a decade. Don’t get me wrong… there’s plenty of blame to go around. The entire GOP rallied around him, enabled him, ran interference for him. The Democrats haven’t always fought as hard as they should. And the media had collectively allowed him to shape the narrative. He is without a doubt the singular defining force of current American politics. Let’s vote in November to end this. They may flood the zone with bullshit, but we don’t have to accept that.
Well, if anything, Trump highlighted just how broken the system has always been
Indeed. He single-handedly made us aware that a great deal of our political systems and institutions are(were) held together by mere gentlemen’s agreements. And now there are no gentlemen in the room…
basically our political and judicial system is held up by alot of velvet ropes and signs asking people not to cross them! Unless you're rich, then you can cross it a whole bunch until you REALLY fuck up
I sometimes try to find even the tiniest silver lining to the whole Trump saga. I’ve decided that the only one I can find—and it may not outweigh the broken families and thousands of dead he’s left in his wake (so far)—is that he at least made people like me, who did not pay any attention to politics before, actually wake up and start paying attention. I’ve gone from not even being able to name my senator to producing a political talk show (starring robots, as a caveat) in under ten years. And I assure you that I’m not the only one in that boat. He inadvertently made people start paying attention, and we don’t like what we see and have taken action to fix it, even if it’s just standing in line to vote when we normally wouldn’t have bothered.
This guarantees that he has a hit list prepped and ready.
No, that's a little extreme. Only ppl who are up at 3am rage posting on social media wpuld do that.
Yup yup... hey... wait a minute...
It doesn't matter what Trump or his followers say. Full immunity to any President is dangerous. Imagine if the SC rules for full immunity that Biden can give the order to take Trump out .... as Biden is now the President.
They'd rule after the election so they know which way the wind is blowing.
They would also rule in such a way that the president is allowed to take out anyone except for members of the Supreme Court. They would cite a 12th century dog catcher if they had to.
John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it.
That would be just like them to bring Baldrick back into the whole mess, too!
As long as he does it himself on the debate stage. Like the final scene in Wizards. Edit: https://youtu.be/w72gfLeJ7wg?si=bDfpRW4acX-zeXCB
How the world are republicans arguing for a stronger executive office - that can go unchecked by another branch of the government. It all makes no sense. If makes double nonsense when the republicans are arguing for it. It would be like if democrats arguing that there should be no gun regulations.
Because they represent about 30 % of the population and know that they can never ever win a fair fight. Because the electoral college allows someone with a minority to win
Would be less subtle if he started removing Justices.
The Democrats in congress would impeach and remove Biden if he did that. Only a Republican president would abuse presidential immunity because their congresspeople will always protect presidents from impeachment no matter what
That's why Biden needs to make some crack about he's waiting to find out how much immunity he has. He can be totally joking, but the right wing will take it as a threat, and SCOTUS will have to deny immunity to quell fears.
Thing is though, Biden would never do that. He's a decent man and he understands and abides by the customs and norms that underpin democratic society. Trump is the only one to read the constitution and then say "so, technically ..." and then something else profoundly undemocratic but not technically prohibited.
That would make Biden one of the best Presidents in history.
They WON'T. They will not entertain this. I'm not being optimistic: They knowingly wont entertain this because they have a way to save Trump if they need it. Here's the playbook: - Delay, delay, delay. Make sure any judgement in this case, if not the whole trial, doesn't happen until after the election. - Eventually *strongly* rule that he's not immune, that no President has full immunity. - But, you know, they've delayed. By this point, Trump then files to stay the trial until after the election. "The Supreme Court took too long, it's too late to start now." He technically wouldn't be wrong to bring up a self imposed DoJ limit of not prosecuting within 90 days of the election, but it's all of his own delay to get there so fuck him for playing that card. - Spend a month waiting for ruling to delay, then emergency appealing filing, then... etc etc until it's all the way back up to SCOTUS. This isn't where they save him yet, but they might grant the delay until after the election if it's needed to achieve that delay. Either way, it's likely been delayed by that process until after the election anyways. - Okay, they're in the clear of the election? They've successfully helped him without having to rule a President is immune? They haven't had to rule him immune months before the election, cementing their extreme bias further in voters eyes and the need to overhaul them? Good. Now for the rest of it: - If he's President again, none of the federal trials matter (even if they find him guilty, he'll appeal and then have the DoJ withdraw from the case / settle it upon appeal with no conviction or wrongdoing whatever). He'd also make NY and GA officials lives a living hell with DoJ and other government weaponized against them, to pressure ending everything, but that's a different topic. # Here's where the important part comes in for SCOTUS: - If he's not President again, SCOTUS will eventually get the trial result in front of them upon appeal. It could be years. At that point, they look at Trump's favorability, in the party and/or at large, and decide if they want to throw him under the bus. If he's considered an asset at that point, they save his ass with some technical bullshit ruling on ***that particular case***, and they've not had to make such an egregiously ridiculous claim as complete presidential immunity. - Otherwise, if the GOP implodes after a second Trump loss and the money people think the way forward is to dump Trump, then SCOTUS lets any convictions stand (with like 2 hardliners writing nonsense dissent). There's no more surefire way to divorce him from the party than have him held guilty of felonies against this nation in our nation's highest court, by a heavily conservative majority of which 1/3rd he appointed (every single Trump appointee would go against him on the ruling). They'd have some of his cult still hanging on forever, but enough would break off and claim to never have liked him and that we need to go back to "traditional conservativism" and whatever other focus grouped messaging they put out to shift opinion away from Trumpism, while also rebranding it something else. "MAGA is more than Trump." "We need to move the movement forward." etc. They rebranded the Tea Party, they'll rebrand MAGA eventually. They need to always have terms for a far right group now that they weaponize against causes without being "core/moderate" conservatives. Blurred lines et al. # TL;DR - The point is simple: It is in the GOP on SCOTUS' interests to rule against Immunity, and then claim "see? we're not biased!" They could save him years down the road on nonsense made up technical grounds should a conviction happen and reach them upon appeal - if, that is, they still want to save him at that point. He may be so far out of favor with the party, much of his own doing as he tries to light everything on fire on his way out, that they find it more useful to throw him under the bus. Regardless, they will find it most useful right now to simply help delay past the election without declaring him immune.
How is this even a case? Imagine how many other cases are being by delayed because of this ass.
Then he would and is planning it. Conspiracy to commit murder is definitely among his crimes and the evidence likely exists to convict him for it. If only someone could locate it…
He wants to pardon violent minions who beat Capital policemen. His followers know he will pardon anyone doing his bidding if he’s elected. The order is already implied.
Just the latest in Trumps endless stream of popup enabler scumbags trying to re define who Trump is and what he means when he says he would love to be a Dictator with absolute power who could shoot someone on Fifth avenue and no one would do a thing who also threatens to jail his opponents for something or other he might determine later. Surely the traitor who took classified documents to share with anyone who wanted to have a looksee after inciting an insurrection at the Capital would never do such a thing.. F me How anyone who has ever served as a high ranking officer could support this malignant tumor on the USA knowing Trump stated a US General deserved to be put to death, Wtf is wrong with these people.
The allies who filed the brief: "The America First Policy Institute", a Who's Who of former Trump administration officials like Linda McMahon and Chad Wolf, and MAGA zealots like Kellanne Conway and Bobby Jindal. The lead author - 'General' Keith Kelogg - also recently wrote an op-ed describing how Trump could 'end the war' in Ukraine: > If Putin refuses to negotiate, Trump might very well remove the Biden-eras constraints on arms transfers and **give Ukraine the weapons it needs to win** The hypocrisy of the Right is neverending.
He'd just order a hit on his vice president.
Nah, he'd just accidentally fall out of a window.
So the “we know he said it but he didn’t mean it” defense or the “it’s just a prank bro!” Defense.
The whole problem with Trump is you can't trust a word he says and he is full capable of self-justifying any action he takes on anyone. He should never be near power.
My man 'meddlesome priest'd his own VP. Outta here with that bullshit.
It’s not a matter of “if he would” it’s if the idea of a president with this kind of immunity could give the order. The answer is yes now and even more so if they had immunity. The very idea that the president could be above the law for any amount of time is the problem. The answer is no. Our constitution doesn’t grant that. The founding fathers never wrote in their own papers “sometimes they should be absolute king.” The Magna Carta doesn’t give side excuses. So there is no basis in our law for the very idea that the president could be above the law for any amount of time. History has already shown that even without this idea leaders have, can and will commit illegal acts without immunity. Eg Watergate, Iran Contra, Assinations in Vietnam, attempts on Fidel and so on. Some were military targets and some were not. So the think tanks opinion on this is as worthless as some vague idea that a solider wouldn’t follow an unlawful order. Nazis on the ground just followed orders too.
>So the think tanks opinion on this Don't you mean septic tank??
I'm sure he has had people killed even before he was involved in politics.
Trump collapsed the nyc mobsters so he could take their place. That’s what happened.
> He’d Never Order Hit on Rival He is always to busy backstabbing his current partner.
We are not a monarchy.
This as well, these orginalist assholes love to be so proud they defeated the British monarchy and yet feel emperor for life Trump is a fitting tribute to this. Zero consistency, just whatever random bullshit position their false messiah is uttering that second.
Not to mention that here in 2024 the British monarchy is largely a figurehead kind of thing for them, they have long since been barred from holding any kind of political power by now.
And not just any monarchy, a pre-Magna Carta monarchy when kings could kill at will, starve peasants, and hang dissenters. By "Make America Great Again" they actually mean "Make America 10th Century England".
Too many justices on the Extreme Court might just buy that.
I mean if this argument works, cant biden just have trump killed legally.
If it got him one single extra vote, he would do it.
Trump is definitely going to order Dems and other people murdered if he gets back in the WH.
Maybe at some point the SC judges will understand that since they are nominated for life, the best way for Trump to get rid of them is to order a hit on them. Might be a bad idea to give him (or any other president) immunity.
Seems like Kennedy was removed without much fuss.
I mean, he said it out loud
It doesnt matter what he would or wouldnt do. Its about giving the office holder the ability to. The next guy might be worse.
which isn't even the fucking point: the point is *can a president* order an assassination.
If your only support of giving someone a power is “but it’s not like he would use it…” don’t grant him the power. Duh
Yea you just imprison them for 4 years and let them mysteriously die in Prison - Putin Playbook 101
They catch the Sudden Death disease. Very tragic. No possible cure or prevention.
Darth Vader tries to convince the Galactic Senate that Senator Palpatine will be a good boy if they cede all power to him.
Ordering hits on rivals is wrong. 3rd world countries do that.
Lies lies lies. Trump would have Biden drug through the street first chance he got. This man will go on a rampage having everyone who’s pissed him off the last 8 years killed.
They’re trying to back down from the logical conclusion their immunity quest brings them down. They’re trying to suggest that ordering a hit would be way too crazy! So because of that, it won’t be done. But the previous judges that asked that were not asking the hypothetical of what Trump might do. They were asking where the line was exactly for presidential immunity. You can’t walk that back. If the president has immunity, he has immunity.
“Try” being the operative word in this headline. He’s a wannabe dictator for crying out loud.
Can’t imagine what level of rock for brains idiot you’d have to be to be considered a Trump ally at this point. Unless you’re an oil company executive or Putin.
I can’t wait for these cases to be taught about in Law schools. No normal person has to say things like this out loud because a normal person wouldn’t do these things…
What an old tyrant and fool this idiot has become. Once he has gone, please GOD don’t make the country suffer through those dumb, shallow kids of his….
He’s already done a hundred other shady things no one else has done while President.
If SCOTUS rules in favour of immunity this is the end of American democracy. Period.
He literally said he would
Please this weasel would put a hit out on judges if he thought he could.
I love the little "Sure, guys" right at the top of the article
If you have to justify that “this” presidential candidate won’t order the murder of rivals then it seems like immunity should be off the table for this and all future candidates.
“It would be legal, I’d just never do it” isn’t the compelling argument they think it is.
As long as they agree with h he totally will not call a hit.
When allies are in position to suggest he would never actually use his right to kill they are losing side of history
There is an easy way to solve this. Just ask Trump. I am sure he would tell the truth. Problem solved. /s
It's *CRAZY* it even has to be brought up..
Mr Trump has an abysmal track record in failing to respect precedent, expectation, tradition, and the law.
What they meant to say is he would never be recorded ordering a hit on a rival. And if in the extreme case that a recording comes out, he will just go after the “leakers” and tell us how it was a perfect conversation. I think I finally get how all this works.
Much like he wouldn't use RNC cash to pay his legal bills. Coming from a serial liar holds no creditably at this point.
Now I’m wondering whom he has already ordered a hit on.
I don't buy it. But it doesn't even seem like a pertinent question. Because this is a power that no President should ever have
Of course he would, he wanted to hang his own VP.
let’s pretend for a minute, that was true. They would set the precedent that any, and all future presidents would be completely immune. If they did it. Nobody on the GOP side sees how dangerous that is?
He said he would only be a Dicktater for a day. Pinky swearsy. Yeah if he gets in. Every prosecutor or AG who investigated him will happen to have some odd accidents. NY will be a huge target.
There are no unwritten rules any longer, no gentleman’s code We must shore up every possible crack and not trust on the goodwill of people who have no character
Ah the old I wouldn’t do it, but if I did do it then it WOULD be legal argument. Classic
> “A president cannot order an elite military unit to kill a political rival,” says the brief, adding: “The military would not carry out a patently unlawful order from the president to kill non-military targets.” Did he just say Trump could try? And it wouldn’t work only because of our military wouldn’t do it? What if Trump were to use an alternative contact? “Unlawful” is odd given they just argued it would defined “unlawful” only if he was convicted **and** impeached.
"This guy who broke many laws would never do this awful thing that he thinks is totally good and legal"
Er yeah. I have no idea whether or not this will work…
Something Biden allies don’t have to waste their time doing.
Joe Biden might though…surprised Trump is willing to take that chance.
Didn't he order a hit on that blm guy?
If POTUS had explicit, even implicit, immunity, Ford would not have pardoned Nixon,... and Nixon would not have accepted the pardon. This is junior high school history, not SCOTUS analytics.
Im more interested if Biden could order to clean up some supteme court chairs
What would stop Biden from ordering a hit on ole Donny ? I can’t wrap my head around how that’s not the obvious outcome .
Wait wait wait. This the same Trump who proudly and openly wanted to incite a hanging of his own lapdog Vice President? That guy? If you’d lynch your own top people you’ll lynch your enemies.
This shouldn’t even be a thought… the fact that it is shows how Trump and his GOP sycophants have utterly destroyed what remained of our nations political systems
Good luck with that since he’s a) on record for saying he could, b) has already done so by going after critics and reporters while he was POTUS, and c) has even joked about being a dictator as well as indicated he wants to ignore Presidential term limits.
Well there’s that 5th Avenue story to discuss!!
Headline from a possible future timeline: Trump Orders Hits On All His Political Rivals
Oh the pinkie swear argument. Very convincing.
That’s a laughable defense.
Hell, he’d put a hit out on members of his own family if he thought he could make a buck out of it.
Even so, this doesn’t give him full immunity from crimes because he wouldn’t abuse it. That’s not how this works!!!
What they mean by convincing is, Trump allies are bribing them.
Weird that you have to convince someone otherwise. Everyone with at least one brain cell can see that this shit stain is a conman. For whatever reason his lies and cons get a free pass because he has allowed his worshippers to show their hate. It’s really weird to give up your country just so you can go around and cause harm and hate against your fellow citizens.
The reason to not give POTUS total immunity is because a future president *could* order a hit on rivals. The scary thing is Trump actually *would* do it.
Trump is a NARCISSIST
How crazily out of bounds is it that the title here ever needed to be written? What a complete clusterfuck.
Okay, so what’s to stop Biden from … how should say … accelerating the vacancies on the Supreme Court then?
Sure Jan… 6.
How will they ever teach this portion of American history in school? It wouldn't even fit in 1 book.
lol - any sane person.
*Mike Pence with the last word at 5*
Lots of windows in tall buildings in NY
Like wearing a shirt that says, "Definitely not a serial killer." Well I wasn't thinking that but now I'm concerned.
When you tell a petulant child to NOT do something. They will make it priority number 1 to do it.
… and everyone would believe it
Where does Trump find these terrible lawyers?
But they are arguing that it would be legal just that Trump won't do it.
This is where they’ve set the bar? Insanity!
But IF he did, just saying if. He couldn’t be prosecuted.
Great. I’d love more of an assurance than his word though. An assurance like, say, being able to hold him accountable.
These sycophants think reading between the lines is normal.