If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don’t see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.
I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don’t want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it’s actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.
What am I missing?
It has to be an official act within the scope of the executive branch. So he couldn’t just bring a gun and shot him, however he could direct the justice department to focus on domestic terrorism and cite Trump’s threats for political retribution as a terroristic threat and have him and every other Republican who publicly agreed with him disappeared.
Trump is arguing that his twitter was “official communications”, and thus can’t be used in court. This means that the 34 felony convictions might go away now.
But the truth is that the Supreme Court didn’t say that every “official act” was immune from consequences. The more nuanced reading is that any act that the Court declares official is immune from consequences.
The Conservatives on the Court declared the president King, but only when they feel like it.
Can we book this in for 10:30 tomorrow?