Right-wing legal talking heads are focusing on arguing that it is RIDICULOUS to say that a second-term Trump will be empowered by immunity to do horrific things, while carefully preparing to argue in seven months that it is RIGHT that Trump do horrific things which aren’t actually horrific anyway.
Would it be about accurate to say that the immunity decision still allows Prez actions to be struck down as illegal/unconstitutional, but OTOH POTUS could just have those judges killed?
Yes, more or less. But let’s not jump straight to the President killing judges, like with his bare tiny hands. He can just ask the Proud Boys to kill the plaintiffs bringing the cases challenging his actions and then pardon them.
Works best if he uses federal law enforcement or the military to do it, since running those are a part of his "core" constitutional responsibilities and thus clearly an official act. No needing to rely on outside armed groups when giving them instructions might not fall under "official act."
No worries. The constitution says the pres is cinc of the militia, and federal law defines the militia as all men aged 17-45 and women in the national guard.
In terms of any evidence of motive being used against him in a trial, probably! I'm just sayin' if I were in charge of the brand new "Executive Office of Assassinations" I'd want my boss to start off using the most steel-manned argument where they have absolute immunity for their action.
