698

Trump Lawyer Says Having Political Rival Killed Could Constitute 'Official' Presidential Act (www.rollingstone.com)

submitted 6 months ago by skhayfa@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

151 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 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?

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Baphomet_The_Blasphemer@lemmy.world 7 points 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?

[-] Red_October@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 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.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

............. I have so much hate in my heart. Not as much as these people, though.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 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!

load more comments

this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024

698 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19102 readers

3973 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News