Trump Lawyer Says Having Political Rival Killed Could Constitute 'Official' Presidential Act

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.
- 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.)
  Edit: but also, from the article, this isn't the actual desire. They already got what they wanted and that was a delay.
Conservative justices rule that the president is immune from prosecution
President has conservative justices assassinated
President appoints more progressive justices
Progressive justices reverse ruling
Would the president be liable for the prior assassinations at that point?
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.
- To be a seal, you will do what orders you are given. They aren't going to go rogue. The ones that will are the cannon fodder anyways.
Bonus points if their orders include the phrase "stand back and stand by".
Clarence: “I was watching a porno about this just this morning… I will meet you gentlemen in my chambers in 5 minutes.”
That doesn't work because the intimidation is still illegal until the ruling.
Not some random courthouse. Just the steps of the Supreme Court.
Decisions like this should have immediate consequences for those deciding. If you want to make the President above the law, well, enjoy your stay in Gitmo.

Sotomayor should have asked about assassinating “corrupt” Supreme Court justices, in case some of her colleagues need help connecting the dots.

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.

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'

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.
- 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.
The US has always been a hive of scum and villainy.
- 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 cancel 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.
It's almost as if hostile nation states are manipulating public opinion to destabilize western democracies and alliances.
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.

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.

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.

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

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.
- 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.
- 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.
Why just Trump? add the supreme Court, the senate and the house as an opening act.
They don't think very far ahead do they?

“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.

The right question to ask is whether the president can decide to assassinate a supreme court justice. Then it becomes plenty clear to the supreme court fucks how obviously insane the rationale is.

Thing is, they are asking the questions and I rather suspect that they don't want to put that out there.

The main Trump lawyer defense has been to say that the military has it's own rules against executing such an order. But if Trump promises them pardons, those rules wouldn't be enforced, and the whole thing would be "legal".

The pardon power is kinda the root of all evil here, because even if the court finds that Trump isn't immune (which they almost certainly will), that just brings up the next question which is can the president pardon himself? I'm amazed that after the Trump years and his corrupt pardons there's been no effort to limit the pardon power.

The pardon power should be eliminated, and that's been clear since Nixon was pardoned. Sure, just about every president has a feel-good set of pardons, people who were railroaded by bad laws and bad court practices, but those corrections are only a tiny fraction of the outrageous injustices committed by our system, and their existence is used to justify the injustice in the first place - "oh but surely there will be a pardon for people who really need it" - as if depending on a single King-figure at the top to make good decisions, instead of improving systems, was ever a good idea. But in the meantime, just about every president also has a list of political pardons they trade for favors, or use for people who committed crimes on behalf of the president, or the party. Why the fuck does it make any sense at all to say "hey, this person was elected head of the executive branch, they should be able to just shield people from the rule of law", if the rule of law is an important basis of a free democracy? It's weird, when you think about it. End the pardon.

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?

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.
They're being treated seriously because they're made by Republicans, who are part of the same patronage machine as the judges.
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.
Trump's lawyer...?

My gut tells me Trump’s lawyers don’t actually want the president to be immune. They already won by having the Supreme Court take up this absurd case allowing his other trial to be delayed until this issue is resolved. Likely after he’s president.

Lol, that's exactly what the article says. Literally the last three lines summing it all up:
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. Rolling Stone reported on Wednesday that many of the former president’s lawyers and political advisers are bearish on their odds of success — but it’s not all doom and gloom.
“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.
- What luck, to be alive for the history class future generations will hate the most
- Exactly. No one thinks presidents should be able to commit crimes with impunity. This is a delay tactic and we feel for it hook, line, and sinker. When you have money to pay for lawyers, you can delay justice indefinitely. Sure Trump is on trial for the Stormy Daniels coverup payments right now, but if he serves a single day in prison for it, I will gladly eat my hat.

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.

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.
- Classified documents aren't a great example, as classification authority is delegated by the executive.
The very next question should have been "And if he has 1/2 of the House of Representatives killed at the same time?"
- I think that was covered under the coup question.
- why only half? isn't it more efficient to kill all members of all other branches along with all identified successors?

"Your honor I submit to the court..our own rules instead the current ones, what say you!?"

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?

A bold move for the council of the current president's political rival, but alright bet. Pretty sure the lawyer just wants a way to escape the current client while saving face.

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.

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!

Feel like theyre trying to setup as a given that "official presidential acts" are immune from prosecution.

Like "alright assassinating a political rival is a step too far but now we're discussing a much more tame action as president."

No go back a step, there is no law granting the president immunity from the law. It doesnt matter what is or isnt an "official act"

Orangefucks lawyer is as stupid and evil as he is

I do very hope this is snark.