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”
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.
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?”
“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
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!)
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”
I don't. "I don't want to go down *with him*" is the most base of individual risk assessments.
You now know that he is never going down, and he can coordinate criminal behavior among many participants with complete immunity.
The instinct of not going down with someone is “I don’t want to go down and working with him will take me down”. It’s not “I’m fine going down as long as it’s not with him”.
I don’t see how “I’ll go down but he won’t” risk assesses any better than “go down with him”.
It’d be a tipping point of likely success. The flip side of that calculus is that the people doing Trump’s bidding would know they’re the only ones who can be left holding the bag if they fail.
Sure, but that’s back to the “we’d be fucked either way” scenario. The president also can’t really “go down” while in office, so the same members of the military would already be on board with a coup.
You’re right that the first general says that. Trump fires him and three more, until he gets the one that’s says “ok”.
The difference is now Trump *knows for a fact* that he’s right and the general is wrong
I think Trump is more likely to fire generals to get the one willing to do it, because *he* knows it’s “legal” now, so when a general says it’s “illegal”, he knows they’re wrong/lying
And I guess my expectation is that he would have tried that anyway. After feeling betrayed by Milley I have zero faith that he’d have restrained himself from firing a general who refused his orders.
It’s certainly possible! I do wish we were doing a better job distinguishing between what makes the decision in and of itself dangerous and what makes it dangerous because of how it might be interpreted.
