this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
410 points (98.8% liked)

Not The Onion

16546 readers
769 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Former President Donald Trump’s attorney on Thursday argued that a president could order the assassination of his political rival and stage a military coup without being prosecuted for it.

Jack Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, made the “absolute immunity” argument in a Supreme Court hearing in the Department of Justice election interference case against the former president. Trump’s team has repeatedly claimed that the ex-president can’t be prosecuted for “official acts” he did while in office.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”

“That could well be an official act,” Sauer responded.

Sotomayor seemed taken aback at that line of reasoning.

...

“How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked.

“I think it would depend on the circumstances,” Sauer said.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 98 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They should have asked if the president can order the assassination of a Supreme Court Judge or a senator. Would love the justification.

[–] radix@lemmy.world 101 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And don't even frame it as a nameless hypothetical. Get specific.

"Are you arguing that Joe Biden could order the assassination of Clarence Thomas and Donald Trump, and if the Democratic Senate doesn't convict on impeachment, he gets away with it?"

[–] zib@kbin.melroy.org 47 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would pay good money for one of them to ask that exact question, but sadly, I'm a little too poor to buy my own SCOTUS justice. Maybe we could start a gofundme and crowdsource it?

[–] Duit@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] realbadat@programming.dev 11 points 1 year ago

I'd put in the remaining $5 needed for Thomas to be bought

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Huh. Well here's a though: as Biden's last act as president, he should just go ahead and order the assassination of Trump. It'll rid us of Trump, and force the matter into the SCOTUS who will then need to establish precedent case law stating specifically that US presidents aren't allowed to have political rivals assassinated... cuz apparently that's necessary. >_<

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not just "retire" certain members of SCOTUS first. These people should be very afraid when the new president gets into office with these rules.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Actually I suppose that would be pretty easy...

To justices that think it's ok for presidents to order the assassination of rivals, Biden can say:

"You should retire. If you do not retire, I have the power to get rid of you permanently. Your choice. "

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ah, playing the fascist game against actual fascists. I wonder who will win that game. Hint: it's not the non fascists.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Well clearly this "They go low, we go high" shit isn't fucking working

[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You can't fold after you are all in. Gotta play the hand.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Ok, but has anyone checked to be sure that "Jack Sauer" is his real name? That sounds like a fake name a moron would make up. Like Eric Trump is wearing a moustache and trying to argue before the court to win his dad's affection.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago

"I'm not a lawyer, I just pretend to be one when dad asks"

[–] Sakychu@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It makes a lot of sense because he is probability also the only lawyer who still wants to work for Trump!

I will wait for this to come out on Netflix.

[–] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Dammit Chloe!

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

I think we should test this argument out.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Jokes aside, I expect they don't care about the verdict as long as it happens after the election. That's pretty much his only defense at this point

[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't see how any presidential candidate can believe in this while still being alive. Both can't be true

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Schrodinger's judgement

[–] darkpanda@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“I think it would depend on the circumstances.” That doesn’t sound very absolute then, if it depends. “Absolute” means absolute, not “well actually it would depend.” I think they have a particular set of use cases in mind for this “absolute immunity” thing.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I was about to say, you're using language that sounds very different from "absolute" there, buddy. Absolute is an "all or nothing" word, you can't say "well it's absolute immunity but only for certain things".

[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is what happens when you are so toxic you can't hire any good lawyers.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, this guy is deconstructing his own argument. The argument put forth is "absolute immunity", you can't say "absolute immunity in certain circumstances". Either the president can act with complete impunity or they can't, it's a binary.

[–] Hubbubbub@fedia.io 13 points 1 year ago

They will definitely delay making that decision until after Biden can longer order the assassination of Trump. SCOTUS is complete shit.

[–] Yerbouti@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

It's call setting the table.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

They're arguing this for a reason

Because Trump wants to get re-elected (and he probably fucking will because Americans are dumbasses and Trump is thrashing Biden in the polls right now) and when he does he's going to assassinate political rivals.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yo so does this mean paid assassin is a legal job?

Poor Tim Lambesis... /s

[–] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Has anyone played Secret Hitler? This is literally Trump asking the liberals for that sweet, sweet bullet.