That was trump's lawyer answering a question... and given trump's state of mind, nothing is out of the realm of possibility. Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...f-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/
You’re still not keeping up. Trump claims he is immune from everything. Meaning he could assassinate rivals. Reasonable people think that’s insane and presidential immunity only relates to official duties. The assassination question was brought up by a judge as a logical extreme of total presidential immunity. It’s not some hogwash liberal talking point.
Trump as POTUS tells the CIA to shoot someone (say a Chinese spy) on 5th avenue. Trump has immunity for this, during and after his presidency. Trump as POTUS shoots Joe Biden on 5th avenue, "to stop Biden's election chances". The reason falls outside of the boundaries of the POTUS job, so Trump is not immune for this, after his presidency. The remedy during his presidency is impeachment and removal by Congress. After his removal, Trump would no longer be immune and can be tried for murder. (As others have said, immunity while in the POTUS office is NOT in the Constitution, but it is SOP for th DOJ.)
Trump’s Lawyer, D. John Sauer, Invites President Biden to Assassinate Him Hard to imagine a better demonstration of Trump’s catch-22, kettle logic–brained approach to the law. Can’t be impeached because you haven’t been convicted of a crime, and can’t be convicted of a crime because you haven’t been impeached!
If there is evidence that Obama was using the drone strikes to assassinate political rivals or otherwise for personal gain then he should be prosecuted.
To note trump has said that people who opposed him such as Gen. Milley should be executed and did tweet during Jan 6th while rioters where chanting “Hang Mike Pence” that Mike Pence had let him down. He’s also said he could shoot someone in 5th Avenue and not lose support. While Trump hasn’t assasinated a political opponent, that we know of, he certainly doesn’t seem troubled by the prospect.
The funny thing is I guarantee you that the Trump DOJ did actually look at what an indictment of Obama would look like and that’s where this idea is coming from with Trump. Jeff Sessions likely was pressured by Trump to take a look and ultimately they told Trump how extremely difficult a military decision like this would be to prosecute because you’d essentially have a giant RICO case with scores of military personnel at the highest levels also charged. However if let’s say Obama ordered a drone strike on Trump in 2016, basically everyone in the military that was involved would be witnesses against Obama and it would be a pretty easy crime to prosecute. So in Trumps case here it falls in the latter category where there’s no chain of command normal protocol happening here. That’s why they are arguing about this “outer perimeter” concept. That’s an admission right there that there case is fundamentally different than the Obama drone strike. Nobody in Homeland Security briefed Trump on voting machines getting hacked and gave him options for federal intervention. This is a president and his cronies going rogue outside of the normal chain of command and protocol to commit crimes with the use of their government position. Anyone who cannot understand this just simply does not WANT to understand this, is incredibly dumb, or is just trolling. Take your pick with Astrodome I guess.
The argument that Trumps defenders are putting forward is essentially “if you go after our guy we’ll go after your guy” that only works if one you are so partisan your concern is to protect your side and two if there is actually evidence to go after the other guy. My own view is yes if there is evidence that Obama used the powers of the presidency for personal gain then he shouldn’t have blanket immunity from prosecution. Whether I liked Obama more than Trump shouldn’t matter compared to the principle that not even the president is above the law.
trump demands total immunity, even for things that cross the line (laws broken). Even when he is no longer president... and even if the president in question is like a rogue cop...
