Andrew Parker: Oh he 100% could. But he could have done that before. And I have some doubts that the fear of being prosecuted for… something(?) is the difference between a president willing to order that and one who isn’t.

In the sense that the president couldn’t be prosecuted for giving the order, probably. I’m not 100% sure what he’d have been charged with before But a lot of the discussion of this blurs the distinction between “can’t be prosecuted for making the order” and “can’t be prosecuted for carrying it out”

right. the president could order troops to suppress protesters using live fire and the supreme court would extend that absolute immunity

If they do it in DC, or on federal military bases then the President can pardon those who carry out his orders

Oh he 100% could. But he could have done that before. And I have some doubts that the fear of being prosecuted for… something(?) is the difference between a president willing to order that and one who isn’t.

Conspiracy to commit murder, is the something

And, yes, there are other constraints, but the rule of law was a pretty big one. Trump floated this several times during his presidency. And was told he can’t do that each time. What happens if he holds up this ruling and says “why not?”

bsky.app/profile/swin...

“Plans are already in motion to use this new, historic court decision as a legal shield to help a potential second Trump administration implement his extreme policy agenda with less concern for rules and laws, sources with knowledge of the matter say.”

At least at first blush, the examples of extreme actions which could be aided by this ruling… aren’t The thing stopping Trump from sending active duty troops to US cities to “bring order” wasn’t his fear of being personally prosecuted, it was that the military would (we hope) refuse unlawful orders

I think the second refusal thing is now less likely with the ruling that the president enjoys the same immunity as a king.

Maybe. That’s the best argument I’ve heard for this being “can do whatever he wants now”. But I have a hard time imagining someone who yesterday would have said “no, that violates posse comitatus and the constitution” now going “if he can’t be prosecuted, I’ll follow whatever order he gives”

Also like let's be very blunt about what that means It means civil war (Which, yes, is preferable to He Just Sets Up A Tyranny Successfully, but still!)

I think you’re underestimating the way Trump will use this ruling to argue that it is *not illegal* (he will be wrong, but he will wave the ruling around and shout it anyway)

And you’re underestimating the degree to which he’s going to fire and replace generals until they agree with him that it’s not illegal, because the Supreme Court said if he did it, it was OK.

I’m not aware of any instances in which Trump was cowed by “if you do that you will, yourself, have committed a crime you can be prosecuted for.” The only time I know someone invoked that, he did it anyway and that’s how we wound up here.

Post