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

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    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.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s the only argument he can make. If he makes any other argument, his position on complete and total immunity is dead on the spot, as he would be conceding that the President isn’t completely and totally immune after all.

      Any concession, no matter how ridiculous the example, would invalidate his entire case immediately and he knows it. And if you ever hear him say “He would have to be impeached and convicted first”, you’ll know that he damn well knows how ridiculous his own arguments sound.

      Judge: If President Trump were to run around the White House naked with a rubber glove on his head yelling ‘Hi, I’m a squid! Nuke Montana so I can take out my rival octopus and his herd of glitter cows!’, would that be an official act he would have immunity under?

      Sauer: If it’s structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.

      Doesn’t matter what scenario you put there. Sauer’s options are to repeat that line or essentially lose the case.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          There is a law that describes the process. And it exists for exactly this reason: there is no evidence the files Trump stole had been declassified, and by the time it was discovered he had them he was no longer occupying the office.

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      The very next question should have been “And if he has 1/2 of the House of Representatives killed at the same time?”

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        why only half? isn’t it more efficient to kill all members of all other branches along with all identified successors?

            • BaldProphet@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              While you’re at it, write an executive order dissolving Congress and establishing the President as a dictator. It’s an “official act” so it should be fine, right?

                • Dragomus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Now consider that Trump is already speaking in interviews as if he has the guaranteed immunity in his pocket…

                  He already promised he’ll take nasty revenge on his rivals, have people removed who are thwarting him now. Promises drilling drilling drilling (I assume for oil) from day one, regardless if there’s a law or rules against that which would normally need to be overturned first…

                  Somehow he is riding on the done deal he can do whatever he wants the moment he is “elected” and there will be no one to stop him.