When discussing Trump's absurd #immunity bid we keep citing the example "if that was the case presidents could assassinate political rivals with impunity." But this is a bad example.
The REAL example we should use is "if that was the case then presidents could assassinate a Supreme Court Justice with impunity." Because that's fundamentally the argument the Supreme Court would be hearing.
NOW do you understand how absurd it is to think #SCOTUS would support this argument?
@coupland No, the reason it's about example is that it misses the actual argument.
The argument is not that a president can do whatever he wants with impunity. The argument is that a president operating legally within his legal authority can't be personally sued for his execution of the office. The suit has to be against the office, not the individual.
So presidents can't assassinate political rivals with impunity because that wouldn't be a legal part of carrying out the office. The example just doesn't apply.
@volkris You're misrepresenting Trump's argument. His argument is NOT for immunity from prosecution for executing the duties of the office of the President. His argument was for ABSOLUTE immunity.
You know, "shooting somebody in the middle of 5th Ave" immunity.
@coupland read the actual argument formally submitted to the courts, not whatever garbage the guy vomits out in some rally somewhere.
Fine, I'll give you that the idiot may be spewing multiple "arguments," saying different things in public than on the record (which is something we really should be emphasizing to take him down), but the actual, formal argument is about the legal powers of the president, not bloviating about fifth avenue.
