3 ms·

Trump's legal team argued, I think in this case, that a president should be immune from prosecution up to and including calling a hit on a political opponent.

by klyrs 2y ago

Trump's legal team argued, I think in this case, that a president should be immune from prosecution up to and including calling a hit on a political opponent. Which, given all the consternation about Biden persecuting his political opponent, sounded like a bit of an invitation...

lenerdenator 2y ago
Well, SCOTUS didn't give POTUS license to do that, but they did give license to do something awful and then have their defense team argue that the act was a part of official duties, with a chance that a judge, possibly appointed by the President, agrees. The thing about Biden, since you brought him up, is he's unlikely to test this in any meaningful way with regards to Trump. Could he theoretically now have the USSS detail in charge of babysitting Trump indefinitely detain him, without consequence? Maybe. But he still has at least some belief in the process and won't do that. This gives me flashbacks to lessons about von Hindenburg. An old guard who had belief in the process going by it even when dealing with someone who has obvious and sneering contempt for that process.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > An old guard who had belief in the process going by it even when dealing with To be fair the situation in Germany was multipolar. Hindenburg wasn’t a huge fan of democracy or especially of one run by Catholics, liberals and socialists and just saw the nazis as a lesser evil..
- tick_tock_tick 2y ago
  > Could he theoretically now have the USSS detail in charge of babysitting Trump indefinitely detain him, without consequence? I mean under what idea is that part of his official duties? If it's not it's literally exactly the same as before. Biden can do this at literally any moment. This court case doesn't change his ability to make unlawful moves.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Is it unlawful? After today, if a federal judge arbitrarily decides "it's not", well... it's not. I suppose if they really wanted to give a reason they could say he's a flight risk or something, it doesn't need to be valid with today's ruling.
    - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
      How is that different then any executive action before the ruling? Presidents attempt to do all sorts of shit and then a judge say no. Literally nothing changed the surprise was it wasn't a 9-0 ruling not anything in the ruling.
rtkwe 2y ago
Very much in the air and down to courts to decide, ordering the military around is certainly within the official acts but doing it on US soil not directly pursuant to external boundaries like the border generally wouldn't be. Ultimately I think the issue with this is we're trying to address a deep systematic issue through the system it's infected. Often those issues can't be solved that way and have to go around the system itself somehow. You're unlikely to be able to sue your way out of a fascist coup when it's successful for example, and similarly disadvantaged when the avenue is carrying water for a failed coup.
treis 2y ago
On the other hand, if Trump marches on Washington at the head of an army surely Biden can take him out with an airstrike. Extreme scenarios often lead to bad law.

by klyrs 2y ago

lenerdenator 2y ago

Well, SCOTUS didn't give POTUS license to do that, but they did give license to do something awful and then have their defense team argue that the act was a part of official duties, with a chance that a judge, possibly appointed by the President, agrees. The thing about Biden, since you brought him up, is he's unlikely to test this in any meaningful way with regards to Trump. Could he theoretically now have the USSS detail in charge of babysitting Trump indefinitely detain him, without consequence? Maybe. But he still has at least some belief in the process and won't do that. This gives me flashbacks to lessons about von Hindenburg. An old guard who had belief in the process going by it even when dealing with someone who has obvious and sneering contempt for that process.

ffgjgf1 2y ago
> An old guard who had belief in the process going by it even when dealing with To be fair the situation in Germany was multipolar. Hindenburg wasn’t a huge fan of democracy or especially of one run by Catholics, liberals and socialists and just saw the nazis as a lesser evil..
tick_tock_tick 2y ago
> Could he theoretically now have the USSS detail in charge of babysitting Trump indefinitely detain him, without consequence? I mean under what idea is that part of his official duties? If it's not it's literally exactly the same as before. Biden can do this at literally any moment. This court case doesn't change his ability to make unlawful moves.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  Is it unlawful? After today, if a federal judge arbitrarily decides "it's not", well... it's not. I suppose if they really wanted to give a reason they could say he's a flight risk or something, it doesn't need to be valid with today's ruling.
  - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
    How is that different then any executive action before the ruling? Presidents attempt to do all sorts of shit and then a judge say no. Literally nothing changed the surprise was it wasn't a 9-0 ruling not anything in the ruling.

rtkwe 2y ago

Very much in the air and down to courts to decide, ordering the military around is certainly within the official acts but doing it on US soil not directly pursuant to external boundaries like the border generally wouldn't be. Ultimately I think the issue with this is we're trying to address a deep systematic issue through the system it's infected. Often those issues can't be solved that way and have to go around the system itself somehow. You're unlikely to be able to sue your way out of a fascist coup when it's successful for example, and similarly disadvantaged when the avenue is carrying water for a failed coup.

treis 2y ago

On the other hand, if Trump marches on Washington at the head of an army surely Biden can take him out with an airstrike. Extreme scenarios often lead to bad law.