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
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
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.
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.
Project 2025 anyone…
Rooting out political enemies from within government being a core part of it?
No? Anyone? Bueller?
Or, they could do one assassination and then step down, thereby dodging any impeachment and being immune to any further litigation.