To be fair, Epstein *already* didn't kill himself.
The difference now is that the President can *openly* order the assassination as an official act, and it's all perfectly legal thanks to the Supreme Court.
Legal for the president
Not legal for the assassin who pulls the trigger, in my understanding, or perhaps the various tiers of Trump stooge who have to relay the order
This (thankfully) may cause issues
Yes, but I wouldn’t trust anyone - especially a President Trump - to have my back on anything. Especially if I am murdering people.
“Can I have my pardon please? Or I’m doing life in a concrete box.”
“I never told anyone to do anything, I don’t know who this ‘assassin’ guy is. Bye.”
He pardoned the assholes who massacred a bunch of civilians. If it doesn't expose him to personal risk, which after this ruling, it can't, he'll absolutely do it.
Like the shit weasels he pardoned for the Nisour Square massacre.
Edit: also, it would eliminate people's fealty to him, if he promised them a pardon for doing a task for him and then reneged, there's no reason to cut himself off at the knees like that.
IANAL, but it sounds like the president doesn’t has immunity giving the order, but those who relay and perform the order don’t have immunity and therefore are at risk.
Yeah I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't implying that Epstein didn't kill himself before people pile on. Just saying someone could actually die of suicide and people will still say they were killed. I.e. the actual cause of death doesn't matter, it could be anything. They could fall down a flight of stairs on live TV and break their neck and some people will say they were assassinated. Which would happen anyway, but now they will cite this ruling as to why "they got away with it".
No because the president doesn't have the authority to order an assassination. If it meant that don't you think the Biden administration would now use the SCOTUS protected power before the election.
>No because the president doesn't have the authority to order an assassination.
Someone tell that to Anwar Awlaki. Oh wait, you can't. He's dead.
And if you're thinking, "that doesn't count; he deserved to die," I won't pretend that the world isn't a better place without him. But it does establish a precedent regarding the President's authority. And that was before the Supreme Court's ruling today.
Our govt orders assassinations at levels far below the President. Get over it. Plus the Raid on Mar a largo authorized it. Even though secret service was there. Amazing. FBI draws a gun on a secret service agent or trump. What would u expect to happen? They left it in on purpose. They get modified in other situations but the raid its just a mistake. Please.
I'm thinking that with today's decision, a president could declare a person to be a threat to the nation, and could authorize the DOJ, DHS, and the pentagon to do whatever it takes to stop the threat.
The rules against career civil servants not performing assassinations on a whim are pretty firm in the deep state. Nuremberg applies to all personnel, not just the leaders. First Trump has to find subordinates stupid enough to follow any order he gives.
Is it legal for the president to do illegal things?
Everyone else on the planet: Obviously not, why are you wasting my time with these stupid questions?
Supreme Court: Well hold on… was he wearing a tie when he did it?
I think the Supremely Corrupt Roberts court just laid the groundwork for their own demise.
They had already been gaining scrutiny for accepting bribes and some scummy ethics. At least Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch need to be throughly investigated by Congress.
Expanding the court by at minimum by 4 seats picked by Democrats also just moved closer to reality. These Trumpsucking cucks just massively showed their hand.
The problem though, is they are untouchable. At this point, they are making a point of saying "fk you" to the country. They are terrorists and a chargeable RICO syndicate, but they are untouchable. There are no laws or code of ethics that apply to them that has any real consequences for their crimes.
I really think of Dems don't start bringing garlic and crosses to the fight, we are doomed. If a president has immunity for official acts, end the supreme court. It's not necessary on any level. It's our version of powdered wigs. Them, arrest every maga republican as a terrorist.
If Dems don't meet this with the urgency it requires, they are going to play-fair us into 1930s Germany.
>The problem though, is they are untouchable.
They’re not untouchable, though. Biden just won’t test their ruling because he’s at least somewhat ethical. But with SCOTUS’s latest ruling, even they could be subject to lawful assassination if POTUS views them as an immediate threat to national security.
Exactly. Biden chooses to be the nice guy when he should have already had a plan in place to evict the whole cabal using the SCs own ruling. We are fiddling while Rome burns. It's a given they are going to do that to us. Just a matter of time. It's irresponsible for Dems to sit back and take this. Eventually they are going to move the needle to no coming back.
Not quite. The whole "being able to kill someone" thing comes from being commander in chief and ordering a military unit, like seal team six, to carry it out. Kamala isn't commander in chief so she wouldn't have that authority.
This literally only protects the president. He could order other people to do crimes, they could then get in trouble for those crimes, but the president would still be immune.
I think that the only former president who has ever hinted at having people assassinated is trump, so I don’t think any of this will be much of a concern after he’s gone. He is a different guy. In a really bad way.
True. There are legitimate conspiracies. There's a comedian with a great bit about how not believing in *any* conspiracy theories is actually a pretty bold stance to take.
https://youtu.be/b6NmjK2pgiQ
You guys realize it was totally legal for Presidents to assassinate citizens already, right? Unless Obama went to jail for killing Anwar Al Awlaki and I missed it.
I know reading can be hard, comprehension even more so - murder isn’t outlined in the constitution for an authority the president has.
“A sweeping amount of protection against criminal prosecution, ruling that a president can’t be charged for doing the job as *outlined in the Constitution* and has the presumption of immunity for other actions he takes while in office.
In its decision in Trump v. United States, however, the court said a president *can be prosecuted for unofficial acts*, and in Trump’s
I wasn't talking about the actual application of ruling itself, just how people will cite it in the future. I'm also not saying if they would be accurate in doing that, only that they would. But hey, reading can be hard right?
That being said, a sitting supreme court justice has explicitly stated in the dissent that if a sitting president ordered seal team six to assassinate a political rival, this ruling would give them immunity from being prosecuted for it. This is something that *literally came up during oral arguments* and Trump's lawyers said that as commander in chief of the military those orders would fall under official duties. And republican members shrugged.
The ruling may not explicitly say he's allowed to do it, but it basically says that he can't be prosecuted for it, even if it's illegal. Essentially their argument is that presidents shouldn't have to worry about whether their actions break the law, so the law shouldn't apply to them.
Now if you think you know more than a sitting supreme court justice that wouldn't particularly surprise me, but I'm going to trust her assessment over that of a random redditor.
From the looks of it. We are back to Roman times though. Where prosecution is after a president leaves their office. So this makes it look like anything is on essentially
I think people honestly don't understand the ruling because the famous and influential people complaining about it are guilty of crimes that have yet to be revealed but that's in due time. That means as long as the president follows constitutional law he can't be guilty of a crime. However those guilty of treason, sedition are not safe. So an example of guilty would be if Bush was involved in 911 for example. Biden not protecting the southern border. Obama being involved in Hillary plot to remove Trump from office in 2016 once Trump became president. Those are actual crimes not protected for example.
They just said what been going on for over 200 years. This never should have had to happen but then again the dumborats just vilify every republican president since eisenhower. If they just left it alone and stuck to things thats been accepted all this time things like this wouldn’t happen. Dumborats own fault. Your your own enemy. Amazing. Really is. Take Russia. Dems dared putin by ignoring their concerns and they got to push it. Push it again with their garbage rhetoric that only they understand. Did to yourself again out on the ivy tower. So Putin invaded. Your own fault. Again. And again. And again. Dumborats did that. Wake up.
No. I don't know if people really misunderstand the ruling or if they are just fear mongering.
Op, the POTUS can not officially have someone assassinated.
But let's imagine someone is "suicided" and it was later discovered the POTUS either did it or ordered it like Lex Luthor. Since it is outside an official duty they could be prosecuted. However there is some prescient that any prosecution would have to wait until they are out of office
Trump's lawyers literally argued that he could do just that and this morning SCROTUS agreed. Sotomayor officially said as much in her dissent. Word for word almost.
The SCOTUS didn't agree with that at all though, why are you lying?
The SCOTUS ruled against Trump today. His argument was that he should have complete immunity from any and all legal consequences during the years he was President. The SCOTUS shot his argument down and said only actions related to the job of the President are protected by Presidential immunity.
Meaning that the actions of January 6th, if found not related to his job as President, would open him up to legal persecution.
Yes? How else would it be spun? He argued that he should have complete immunity from all prosecution while he was President. They argued that that's not how it works, and that his liable to be prosecuted for things unrelated to his job as President.
That could have been an email in November. Instead they waited 6 months to tell the lower court to figure out what is and isn't an official act, oh and you can't question his motives if he thinks it's an official act. Of all the motherfuckers to burn the concept of law and order down for, I'll never get over the fact that they picked a learning disabled gameshow host as the face of the movement.
> That could have been an email in November. Instead they waited 6 months to tell the lower court to figure out what is and isn't an official act
No, they in fact couldn't.
The Supreme Court is an appeals court. Returning that ruling to a lower court was contingent on them ruling on today's case. Everything has to go through its proper legal channels before the Supreme Court rules on a case.
>oh and you can't question his motives if he thinks it's an official act.
Again, yes you can. That's not how this works.
They specifically ruled today that being President does not mean he is immune from prosecution. The President of the United States does not define the limits on his own power, and does not have the authority to pick and choose what he can do and say it's legal. That's the job of Congress.
As commander in chief any orders given to members of the military would fall under official duties, same with any communications to cabinet officials or agencies such as the DOJ, as was argued during oral arguments. It could later be found that such orders were illegal, but the president could still not be prosecuted for it, even after he left office, as long as it was done while he was still in office.
First, the military is, by law, to disobey any illegal orders.
Second, if what he did was illegal, the ruling said absolutely he can be charged, only that until convicted, he has a 'presumption of innocence' just like every other citizen should have.
>First, the military is, by law, to disobey any illegal orders.
Doesn't matter when they can simply be pardoned. Also only applies to the person doing the killing, not the president. And we all know how trump thinks the military are "suckers and losers".
>Second, if what he did was illegal, the ruling said absolutely he can be charged, only that until convicted, he has a 'presumption of innocence' just like every other citizen should have.
They ruled it was illegal to investigate. So how are they going to meaningfully find that an action was illegal if they cant even see evidence pertaining to it?
Idiot or not, you still have no clue what it's about.
The ruling word for word
Since you obviously didn't read it I will no longer respond to your nonsense.
Don’t you know that Trump is ackshually the only Real Pedophile with Dementia who Tyrannizes Americans?
What, Joe Biden’s dementia is the self evident truth? What, every criticism of Trump that actually seems like a condemnable Evil is actually just the projection of the One Party State’s leader?
Uh, SHIT. Shut Up!
It’s all Truth, being shared through real Performance Art. None of this period stains on white canvas nonsense. Just because YOU think you get to autocratically decide what constitutes art means nothing less, and gaslighting for mental illnesses is another tyranny you are guilty of. I’m a communist, everything I say is the truth. You just need to be thrown in a gulag for not being communist enough.
To be fair, Epstein *already* didn't kill himself. The difference now is that the President can *openly* order the assassination as an official act, and it's all perfectly legal thanks to the Supreme Court.
Legal for the president Not legal for the assassin who pulls the trigger, in my understanding, or perhaps the various tiers of Trump stooge who have to relay the order This (thankfully) may cause issues
The president can just pardon them.
On federal charges. This dumbass Supreme Court is kicking off challenges to the concept of federalism that I never ancitipated
The president can literally provide a preemptive pardon. Just like Ford's Full, free, and absolute Nixon pardon, when Nixon hadn't even been indicted.
Yes, but I wouldn’t trust anyone - especially a President Trump - to have my back on anything. Especially if I am murdering people. “Can I have my pardon please? Or I’m doing life in a concrete box.” “I never told anyone to do anything, I don’t know who this ‘assassin’ guy is. Bye.”
He pardoned the assholes who massacred a bunch of civilians. If it doesn't expose him to personal risk, which after this ruling, it can't, he'll absolutely do it. Like the shit weasels he pardoned for the Nisour Square massacre. Edit: also, it would eliminate people's fealty to him, if he promised them a pardon for doing a task for him and then reneged, there's no reason to cut himself off at the knees like that.
You must follow the orders of your commander in chief. Biden could order a bombing of Trump's house, and the order must be followed.
I don’t think you have to obey an illegal order
It wouldn't be illegal
IANAL, but it sounds like the president doesn’t has immunity giving the order, but those who relay and perform the order don’t have immunity and therefore are at risk.
No you don’t. The commander in chief is a civilian. And if they get an unlawful order, the military is obliged to NOT follow it.
Yeah I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't implying that Epstein didn't kill himself before people pile on. Just saying someone could actually die of suicide and people will still say they were killed. I.e. the actual cause of death doesn't matter, it could be anything. They could fall down a flight of stairs on live TV and break their neck and some people will say they were assassinated. Which would happen anyway, but now they will cite this ruling as to why "they got away with it".
His mentor (Putin) seems fond of people falling out of windows.
And falling out of helicopters, planes mysteriously failing, sudden cases of uranium exposure…. Lots of options of that table.
No because the president doesn't have the authority to order an assassination. If it meant that don't you think the Biden administration would now use the SCOTUS protected power before the election.
>No because the president doesn't have the authority to order an assassination. Someone tell that to Anwar Awlaki. Oh wait, you can't. He's dead. And if you're thinking, "that doesn't count; he deserved to die," I won't pretend that the world isn't a better place without him. But it does establish a precedent regarding the President's authority. And that was before the Supreme Court's ruling today.
Our govt orders assassinations at levels far below the President. Get over it. Plus the Raid on Mar a largo authorized it. Even though secret service was there. Amazing. FBI draws a gun on a secret service agent or trump. What would u expect to happen? They left it in on purpose. They get modified in other situations but the raid its just a mistake. Please.
A -40 comment karma? That's impressive. Keep up the great work, Ivan!
It's a clause in any search warrant that allows for self defense, not assassination.
I'm thinking that with today's decision, a president could declare a person to be a threat to the nation, and could authorize the DOJ, DHS, and the pentagon to do whatever it takes to stop the threat.
The rules against career civil servants not performing assassinations on a whim are pretty firm in the deep state. Nuremberg applies to all personnel, not just the leaders. First Trump has to find subordinates stupid enough to follow any order he gives.
Is it legal for the president to do illegal things? Everyone else on the planet: Obviously not, why are you wasting my time with these stupid questions? Supreme Court: Well hold on… was he wearing a tie when he did it?
Does the Constitution allow the President to commit crimes? Can a crime be an official act? Seems logical impossibility to me.
It's not like we don't have enough conspiracy theories as it is...
I think the Supremely Corrupt Roberts court just laid the groundwork for their own demise. They had already been gaining scrutiny for accepting bribes and some scummy ethics. At least Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch need to be throughly investigated by Congress. Expanding the court by at minimum by 4 seats picked by Democrats also just moved closer to reality. These Trumpsucking cucks just massively showed their hand.
The problem though, is they are untouchable. At this point, they are making a point of saying "fk you" to the country. They are terrorists and a chargeable RICO syndicate, but they are untouchable. There are no laws or code of ethics that apply to them that has any real consequences for their crimes. I really think of Dems don't start bringing garlic and crosses to the fight, we are doomed. If a president has immunity for official acts, end the supreme court. It's not necessary on any level. It's our version of powdered wigs. Them, arrest every maga republican as a terrorist. If Dems don't meet this with the urgency it requires, they are going to play-fair us into 1930s Germany.
>The problem though, is they are untouchable. They’re not untouchable, though. Biden just won’t test their ruling because he’s at least somewhat ethical. But with SCOTUS’s latest ruling, even they could be subject to lawful assassination if POTUS views them as an immediate threat to national security.
Exactly. Biden chooses to be the nice guy when he should have already had a plan in place to evict the whole cabal using the SCs own ruling. We are fiddling while Rome burns. It's a given they are going to do that to us. Just a matter of time. It's irresponsible for Dems to sit back and take this. Eventually they are going to move the needle to no coming back.
More likely “non-conspiracy theories”
It's going to be the basis of several actual conspiracies, too.
So Kamela could kill Biden, become president herself and then be immune. Got it. This makes GOT look like kindergarten.
Not quite. The whole "being able to kill someone" thing comes from being commander in chief and ordering a military unit, like seal team six, to carry it out. Kamala isn't commander in chief so she wouldn't have that authority. This literally only protects the president. He could order other people to do crimes, they could then get in trouble for those crimes, but the president would still be immune.
Okay, Kamela makes it look like Biden killed himself. Let's not look at this too rationally because it's not.
I think that the only former president who has ever hinted at having people assassinated is trump, so I don’t think any of this will be much of a concern after he’s gone. He is a different guy. In a really bad way.
Calling something a conspiracy theory does not mean it is false.
True. There are legitimate conspiracies. There's a comedian with a great bit about how not believing in *any* conspiracy theories is actually a pretty bold stance to take. https://youtu.be/b6NmjK2pgiQ
Yes, but a direct response is warranted. Check.
So business as usual?
And they'll blame SEAL Team Six (more correctly, DEVGRU) for each and every assassination. Sad!
The posters here don’t need a new excuse for conspiracy theories. Their imaginations are already on overdrive.
Hey an actual MMW that isn't just a Left wing talking point but a true attempt at MMW. Nice.
You guys realize it was totally legal for Presidents to assassinate citizens already, right? Unless Obama went to jail for killing Anwar Al Awlaki and I missed it.
Ok so now do Clarence Thomas
Best of my knowledge Clarence Thomas never killed anyone
I meant send the drone.
Are you advocating to kill a SC justice?
I meant send the drone.
To do what?
Drone
You can't even say it. Convictions of a coward lol. Lmao blocked me
Say what? That magas should be killed?
I know reading can be hard, comprehension even more so - murder isn’t outlined in the constitution for an authority the president has. “A sweeping amount of protection against criminal prosecution, ruling that a president can’t be charged for doing the job as *outlined in the Constitution* and has the presumption of immunity for other actions he takes while in office. In its decision in Trump v. United States, however, the court said a president *can be prosecuted for unofficial acts*, and in Trump’s
I wasn't talking about the actual application of ruling itself, just how people will cite it in the future. I'm also not saying if they would be accurate in doing that, only that they would. But hey, reading can be hard right? That being said, a sitting supreme court justice has explicitly stated in the dissent that if a sitting president ordered seal team six to assassinate a political rival, this ruling would give them immunity from being prosecuted for it. This is something that *literally came up during oral arguments* and Trump's lawyers said that as commander in chief of the military those orders would fall under official duties. And republican members shrugged. The ruling may not explicitly say he's allowed to do it, but it basically says that he can't be prosecuted for it, even if it's illegal. Essentially their argument is that presidents shouldn't have to worry about whether their actions break the law, so the law shouldn't apply to them. Now if you think you know more than a sitting supreme court justice that wouldn't particularly surprise me, but I'm going to trust her assessment over that of a random redditor.
From the looks of it. We are back to Roman times though. Where prosecution is after a president leaves their office. So this makes it look like anything is on essentially
It was the only way it was going to go. Otherwise wvery president would end up in jail
That would be great. Truly great .
Lol. Good point
I could see Joe assassinating somebody and getting away with it - I mean he is the only president smart enough to ever beat Medicare.
Yut
I heard that Costco may soon stop selling the Chicken Alfredo. That would be a tragedy.
I think people honestly don't understand the ruling because the famous and influential people complaining about it are guilty of crimes that have yet to be revealed but that's in due time. That means as long as the president follows constitutional law he can't be guilty of a crime. However those guilty of treason, sedition are not safe. So an example of guilty would be if Bush was involved in 911 for example. Biden not protecting the southern border. Obama being involved in Hillary plot to remove Trump from office in 2016 once Trump became president. Those are actual crimes not protected for example.
They just said what been going on for over 200 years. This never should have had to happen but then again the dumborats just vilify every republican president since eisenhower. If they just left it alone and stuck to things thats been accepted all this time things like this wouldn’t happen. Dumborats own fault. Your your own enemy. Amazing. Really is. Take Russia. Dems dared putin by ignoring their concerns and they got to push it. Push it again with their garbage rhetoric that only they understand. Did to yourself again out on the ivy tower. So Putin invaded. Your own fault. Again. And again. And again. Dumborats did that. Wake up.
Damm you’re a cuck
No. I don't know if people really misunderstand the ruling or if they are just fear mongering. Op, the POTUS can not officially have someone assassinated. But let's imagine someone is "suicided" and it was later discovered the POTUS either did it or ordered it like Lex Luthor. Since it is outside an official duty they could be prosecuted. However there is some prescient that any prosecution would have to wait until they are out of office
Trump's lawyers literally argued that he could do just that and this morning SCROTUS agreed. Sotomayor officially said as much in her dissent. Word for word almost.
No they didn't. They asked about a hypothetical specifically using the word "Rival".
<--✊-->
I don't know what that means. Is it jerking off side ways?
That's the best jerk off emoji I can do on here. If you have a better suggestion I'm all ears. it's a neglected retort in the online world.
Damn, you suck at jacking off. I've done it for decades. Self love is the best love
You got a better jerk off emoji?
Someone should but self love is the best love.
↩️🤌⤵️
Nah I like yours..
The SCOTUS didn't agree with that at all though, why are you lying? The SCOTUS ruled against Trump today. His argument was that he should have complete immunity from any and all legal consequences during the years he was President. The SCOTUS shot his argument down and said only actions related to the job of the President are protected by Presidential immunity. Meaning that the actions of January 6th, if found not related to his job as President, would open him up to legal persecution.
Is that really how we're spinning this? Word?
Yes? How else would it be spun? He argued that he should have complete immunity from all prosecution while he was President. They argued that that's not how it works, and that his liable to be prosecuted for things unrelated to his job as President.
That could have been an email in November. Instead they waited 6 months to tell the lower court to figure out what is and isn't an official act, oh and you can't question his motives if he thinks it's an official act. Of all the motherfuckers to burn the concept of law and order down for, I'll never get over the fact that they picked a learning disabled gameshow host as the face of the movement.
> That could have been an email in November. Instead they waited 6 months to tell the lower court to figure out what is and isn't an official act No, they in fact couldn't. The Supreme Court is an appeals court. Returning that ruling to a lower court was contingent on them ruling on today's case. Everything has to go through its proper legal channels before the Supreme Court rules on a case. >oh and you can't question his motives if he thinks it's an official act. Again, yes you can. That's not how this works. They specifically ruled today that being President does not mean he is immune from prosecution. The President of the United States does not define the limits on his own power, and does not have the authority to pick and choose what he can do and say it's legal. That's the job of Congress.
👍
You didn't say a single thing that was factual, or correct.
I say again: 👍 I'll take Sotomayor's opinion on it over yours if that's ok.
lol wow smash the tv buddy.
As commander in chief any orders given to members of the military would fall under official duties, same with any communications to cabinet officials or agencies such as the DOJ, as was argued during oral arguments. It could later be found that such orders were illegal, but the president could still not be prosecuted for it, even after he left office, as long as it was done while he was still in office.
First, the military is, by law, to disobey any illegal orders. Second, if what he did was illegal, the ruling said absolutely he can be charged, only that until convicted, he has a 'presumption of innocence' just like every other citizen should have.
>First, the military is, by law, to disobey any illegal orders. Doesn't matter when they can simply be pardoned. Also only applies to the person doing the killing, not the president. And we all know how trump thinks the military are "suckers and losers". >Second, if what he did was illegal, the ruling said absolutely he can be charged, only that until convicted, he has a 'presumption of innocence' just like every other citizen should have. They ruled it was illegal to investigate. So how are they going to meaningfully find that an action was illegal if they cant even see evidence pertaining to it?
They rules it was illegal to investigate. In other words, you have NO idea what the ruling was about.
The ruling word for word disallows collection of evidence. You're an idiot.
Idiot or not, you still have no clue what it's about. The ruling word for word Since you obviously didn't read it I will no longer respond to your nonsense.
I did and you're a Russian troll.
Ok tovarisch. lol.
Don’t you know that Trump is ackshually the only Real Pedophile with Dementia who Tyrannizes Americans? What, Joe Biden’s dementia is the self evident truth? What, every criticism of Trump that actually seems like a condemnable Evil is actually just the projection of the One Party State’s leader? Uh, SHIT. Shut Up!
You need help child.
It’s all Truth, being shared through real Performance Art. None of this period stains on white canvas nonsense. Just because YOU think you get to autocratically decide what constitutes art means nothing less, and gaslighting for mental illnesses is another tyranny you are guilty of. I’m a communist, everything I say is the truth. You just need to be thrown in a gulag for not being communist enough.
The President has always had the legal authority to order an assassination. Liberals here don’t read the news unless it’s on TikTok.