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

  • athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    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.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      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
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Project 2025 anyone…

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

        No? Anyone? Bueller?

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

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