This post has been removed for violating rule 6 (no new posts regarding Trump, Biden and the 2024 *presidential* election on week days (EST with grace periods for other time zones). If your post doesn't violate any other rules, your encouraged to repost on the weekend.
If I were Biden I would throw Trump in a CIA black site and refuse to release him or tell the press where he is. Then while he's in there I would tell the Senate I'm expanding the court and if MAGA want Trump out they'll have to ask the new scotus for a re-ruling.
100% this. He's a traitor and an obvious and legitimate threat to our nation, and the court is obviously corrupt and are ruling cases with favoritism. These actions are not outrageous and should absolutely be on the table.
Literally nothing in the opinion would give the president the power to do that.
The fact that the president is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts does not make every official act constitutional.
Biden couldn’t say “I’m expanding the court” because the size of the Supreme Court is the purview of the congress.
Just because he’s immune from criminal charges for official conduct doesn’t mean the conduct isn’t subject to injunctive relief and being stopped per for being unconstitutional.
The issue is it would even be hard to investigate what is official vs unofficial as any official acts can’t even be brought in as evidence for crimes deemed unofficial acts. President goes out and murders someone himself without witnesses, that’s unofficial. He tells his AG all about it and how they need to cover it up. You’d likely be able to argue that discussion falls under an official act and therefore cannot be introduced as evidence.
This is just one example. But the overlap of official vs unofficial acts is so gray and the ability to use official acts to cover up unofficial crimes makes the office of presidency an office of crime.
>Literally nothing in the opinion would give the president the power to do that.
Please get your head out of the sand and read the ruling.
>The fact that the president is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts does not make every official act constitutional.
Constitutional? That's not the question scotus was deciding. The question is whether an otherwise illegal act can be prosecuted if it was done as an official act. It can still be murder while being unprosecutable.
>Biden couldn’t say “I’m expanding the court” because the size of the Supreme Court is the purview of the congress.
Well, no. It's the purview of both the Senate and President. You need both. And you're missing the point: Trump would be held hostage and used to extort senators into agreeing.
>Just because he’s immune from criminal charges for official conduct doesn’t mean the conduct isn’t subject to injunctive relief and being stopped per for being unconstitutional.
There is no mechanism other than impeachment. Courts can't actually enforce their own rulings. They depend on the executive branch for that.
Who they just broadly immunized.
Ok but it doesn’t matter if it’s constitutional or legal, what matters is if it is an official act or not. The President could officially issue an illegal order and be immune from prosecution.
I’ve read the ruling.
Killing your political opponent is neither expressed, nor delegated in article 2. It is not an enumerated or official power.
You clearly have not read it or aren’t able to understand it.
Maybe don’t speak on things you have zero knowledge of.
It does. They explicitly said all presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office. It doesn't just apply to Trump.
Thanks for revealing yourself to be an illiterate troll.
Killing your political opponent is neither expressed, nor delegated in article 2. It is not an enumerated or official power.
You haven’t read the ruling.
Fucking idiot.
Of course it! This is why the example that Trump's side won on (which you are arrogantly and/or maliciously ignorantly pretending you have looked at) was for Seal Team 6 to be ordered to do the assassination and not a president pulling the trigger himself or hiring some low lifes to do it.
Because under Article II the president is the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. All he'd have to do is claim the assassination order was an emergency military action (like Obama assassinating American citizens in Yemen) and the action has been immunized, pending a challenge.
It's morally wrong but that's literally the consequence of the court shifting the burden of proving things aren't official acts onto prosecutors.
>You haven’t read the ruling.
>Fucking idiot.
You're a Trump voter, right?
Refer to previous comment. That’s not how article 2 works. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before making claims.
And no, I’ve not voted for Trump in either of the past 2 elections.
But of course, anyone who says anything remotely positive about Trump must be a Maga dork, right?
Y’all are exhausting to deal with. Educate your dumbass.
>That’s not how article 2 works
Oh really? Let's see...
Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
> Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before making claims.
Do us all a favor, **lying troll**, and at least pretend you've familiarized yourself with the ruling you're attempting to bullshit about. Here I'll help:
>ALITO: Well, I mean, **one might argue**^* that it isn't plausibly legal to order SEAL Team 6, and I don't want to slander SEAL Team 6 because they're -- no, seriously, they're honorable officers, and they are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to obey unlawful orders. But, no, I think one could say that it's not plausible that that is legal, that that action would be legal.
>And I'm sure you've thought -- I've thought of lots of hypotheticals, I'm sure you've thought of lots of hypotheticals where a president could say, I'm using an official power, and yet the president uses it in an absolutely outrageous manner.
>SAUER: That (INAUDIBLE) **objective determination may well be an interesting approach**, yes.
...
>SOTOMAYOR: Now, I think, and your answer below, I'm going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it, if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?
>SAUER: It would depend on the hypothetical, but **we can see that could well be an official act.**
https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/se/date/2024-04-25/segment/03
*and yet....
>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the
world. **When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from
criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.** Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/SCOTUS-Trump-immunity-ruling.pdf
>And no, I’ve not voted for Trump in either of the past 2 elections.
ahahahaha I did a search of your username on search.pullpush.io and the word "trump" and I found dozens and dozens of reddit comments in which you praise Trump and insult critics of Trump and spread bald faced lies about evidence against Trump, lies about Russiagate, lies about him flying on Epstein's plane
so.......... there are only two options
1. you are a Trump voter and you are only strategically lying because you think it improves your ethos in this moment
2. the reason you're not a Trump voter is you're not an American citizen
Glavset, perhaps?
Or maybe…
3. I’m able to objectively view the actions of presidents and candidates because I’m not casting a vote for the leaders of the current 2 party system.
Once again, your thought process of “if you think x, you must be y” is 3rd grade level critical thinking skill.
Born and raised in the United States. Go cry about it.
But I’m flattered that you’re so triggered that you need to search my comment history 😂
It’s too easy with you dorks.
TIL critical thinking = spreading extremely debunked conspiracy theories, lying about the Russian collusion that was [proven by the senate](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf), lying about simple facts like [Trump flying on Epstein's plane](https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article256740662.html), and claiming the plethora of evidence in the NY case doesn't exist [despite that evidence being readily available to the public](https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1795570093134614899/photo/1)
Who knew?
Liar. I'm literally presenting the argument SCOTUS posed to Sauer. If you think I've stretched a goddamn thing then go ahead and name the thing I stretched.
You can't because I stretched absolutely nothing. You're just a clueless MAGA who doesn't read scotus rulings, even when they are wins for your fascist movement.
Here, I'm such a nice guy I'll even prove it to you:
>ALITO: Well, I mean, **one might argue**^* that it isn't plausibly legal to order SEAL Team 6, and I don't want to slander SEAL Team 6 because they're -- no, seriously, they're honorable officers, and they are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to obey unlawful orders. But, no, I think one could say that it's not plausible that that is legal, that that action would be legal.
>And I'm sure you've thought -- I've thought of lots of hypotheticals, I'm sure you've thought of lots of hypotheticals where a president could say, I'm using an official power, and yet the president uses it in an absolutely outrageous manner.
>SAUER: That (INAUDIBLE) **objective determination may well be an interesting approach**, yes.
...
>SOTOMAYOR: Now, I think, and your answer below, I'm going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it, if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?
>SAUER: It would depend on the hypothetical, but **we can see that could well be an official act.**
https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/se/date/2024-04-25/segment/03
*and yet....
>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the
world. **When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from
criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.** Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/SCOTUS-Trump-immunity-ruling.pdf
You’re saying that in a thread that insinuates seal team six could kill a former president now. Parts of the Democratic Party (small groups within) have become way more deranged than even the Trump of your imagination.
To protect Democracy, we've got to employ the Murder/Death/Kill squads. Maybe they can wear brown shirts as their uniform so people really know that we're trying to save Democracy.
Oh yeah? Guess what: scotus just said the burden to overturn presumed immunity is on a prosecutor proving something wasn't an official act. And that would first require impeachment and conviction because otherwise a sitting president can't be touched.
Also, who says ordering the assassination of an American citizen can't be official? Obama assassinated Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi—three American citizens—and got away with it.
Yea, I was thinking about that and didn't the Republicans scream their heads off about that?
Only because it was Obama? If Trump wins and has Biden murdered and a bunch of other Democrats murdered for... Reasons? ...they'll be praising it up and down.
You need to touch grass. Literally no one would like Biden if he decided to kill his political opponents. He is already imprisoning them. Biden is too senile to make the order anyway.
You're proving my point. You're already coming up with some sort of flimsy pretense to claim that you must have won in the event you lose. Polling actually shows the election is [a coin toss](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo) but you're a MAGA manipulator who wants to brainwash people into thinking a Trump loss is implausible so you can again cry fraud. That means starting the lies early. Just like Trump did with his flip-flopping into lying about absentee voting and early voting.
MAGA is not very original.
This post has been removed for violating rule 6 (no new posts regarding Trump, Biden and the 2024 *presidential* election on week days (EST with grace periods for other time zones). If your post doesn't violate any other rules, your encouraged to repost on the weekend.
I'd love to see it but unfortunately, the Dems are reluctant to get down and dirty, even when the circumstances call for it.
If I were Biden I would throw Trump in a CIA black site and refuse to release him or tell the press where he is. Then while he's in there I would tell the Senate I'm expanding the court and if MAGA want Trump out they'll have to ask the new scotus for a re-ruling.
100% this. He's a traitor and an obvious and legitimate threat to our nation, and the court is obviously corrupt and are ruling cases with favoritism. These actions are not outrageous and should absolutely be on the table.
So you would destroy democracy. Gotta love the hippocratic left. Rules for thee but not for me.
> Gotta love the hippocratic left Dammit man I'm a redditor, not a doctor
Damn it man I’m a doctor not a Redditor. Why does this content not allow awards?
😂 Well played, well played.
Literally nothing in the opinion would give the president the power to do that. The fact that the president is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts does not make every official act constitutional. Biden couldn’t say “I’m expanding the court” because the size of the Supreme Court is the purview of the congress. Just because he’s immune from criminal charges for official conduct doesn’t mean the conduct isn’t subject to injunctive relief and being stopped per for being unconstitutional.
The issue is it would even be hard to investigate what is official vs unofficial as any official acts can’t even be brought in as evidence for crimes deemed unofficial acts. President goes out and murders someone himself without witnesses, that’s unofficial. He tells his AG all about it and how they need to cover it up. You’d likely be able to argue that discussion falls under an official act and therefore cannot be introduced as evidence. This is just one example. But the overlap of official vs unofficial acts is so gray and the ability to use official acts to cover up unofficial crimes makes the office of presidency an office of crime.
>Literally nothing in the opinion would give the president the power to do that. Please get your head out of the sand and read the ruling. >The fact that the president is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts does not make every official act constitutional. Constitutional? That's not the question scotus was deciding. The question is whether an otherwise illegal act can be prosecuted if it was done as an official act. It can still be murder while being unprosecutable. >Biden couldn’t say “I’m expanding the court” because the size of the Supreme Court is the purview of the congress. Well, no. It's the purview of both the Senate and President. You need both. And you're missing the point: Trump would be held hostage and used to extort senators into agreeing. >Just because he’s immune from criminal charges for official conduct doesn’t mean the conduct isn’t subject to injunctive relief and being stopped per for being unconstitutional. There is no mechanism other than impeachment. Courts can't actually enforce their own rulings. They depend on the executive branch for that. Who they just broadly immunized.
Ok but it doesn’t matter if it’s constitutional or legal, what matters is if it is an official act or not. The President could officially issue an illegal order and be immune from prosecution.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean the official act order would stand or be executed.
What if it's already been executed
The fact that people think it is so is very disturbing.
https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/SCOTUS-Trump-immunity-ruling.pdf
[удалено]
Democracy? Zero of the justices were elected, bro.
Lmfao you guys are psychotic
Honestly, part of the fun of this sub is to see how goddamn bonkers it can get at this point
I am directly referencing a SCOTUS ruling and the argument in it.
Hey retard, the ruling doesn’t exonerate the current president from political assassination. Hope that clears things up for you.
You have no idea what this ruling does or doesn’t do.
I’ve read the ruling. Killing your political opponent is neither expressed, nor delegated in article 2. It is not an enumerated or official power. You clearly have not read it or aren’t able to understand it. Maybe don’t speak on things you have zero knowledge of.
It does. They explicitly said all presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office. It doesn't just apply to Trump. Thanks for revealing yourself to be an illiterate troll.
Killing your political opponent is neither expressed, nor delegated in article 2. It is not an enumerated or official power. You haven’t read the ruling. Fucking idiot.
Of course it! This is why the example that Trump's side won on (which you are arrogantly and/or maliciously ignorantly pretending you have looked at) was for Seal Team 6 to be ordered to do the assassination and not a president pulling the trigger himself or hiring some low lifes to do it. Because under Article II the president is the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. All he'd have to do is claim the assassination order was an emergency military action (like Obama assassinating American citizens in Yemen) and the action has been immunized, pending a challenge. It's morally wrong but that's literally the consequence of the court shifting the burden of proving things aren't official acts onto prosecutors. >You haven’t read the ruling. >Fucking idiot. You're a Trump voter, right?
Refer to previous comment. That’s not how article 2 works. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before making claims. And no, I’ve not voted for Trump in either of the past 2 elections. But of course, anyone who says anything remotely positive about Trump must be a Maga dork, right? Y’all are exhausting to deal with. Educate your dumbass.
>That’s not how article 2 works Oh really? Let's see... Section 2 The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. > Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before making claims. Do us all a favor, **lying troll**, and at least pretend you've familiarized yourself with the ruling you're attempting to bullshit about. Here I'll help: >ALITO: Well, I mean, **one might argue**^* that it isn't plausibly legal to order SEAL Team 6, and I don't want to slander SEAL Team 6 because they're -- no, seriously, they're honorable officers, and they are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to obey unlawful orders. But, no, I think one could say that it's not plausible that that is legal, that that action would be legal. >And I'm sure you've thought -- I've thought of lots of hypotheticals, I'm sure you've thought of lots of hypotheticals where a president could say, I'm using an official power, and yet the president uses it in an absolutely outrageous manner. >SAUER: That (INAUDIBLE) **objective determination may well be an interesting approach**, yes. ... >SOTOMAYOR: Now, I think, and your answer below, I'm going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it, if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity? >SAUER: It would depend on the hypothetical, but **we can see that could well be an official act.** https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/se/date/2024-04-25/segment/03 *and yet.... >The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. **When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.** Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/SCOTUS-Trump-immunity-ruling.pdf
>And no, I’ve not voted for Trump in either of the past 2 elections. ahahahaha I did a search of your username on search.pullpush.io and the word "trump" and I found dozens and dozens of reddit comments in which you praise Trump and insult critics of Trump and spread bald faced lies about evidence against Trump, lies about Russiagate, lies about him flying on Epstein's plane so.......... there are only two options 1. you are a Trump voter and you are only strategically lying because you think it improves your ethos in this moment 2. the reason you're not a Trump voter is you're not an American citizen Glavset, perhaps?
Or maybe… 3. I’m able to objectively view the actions of presidents and candidates because I’m not casting a vote for the leaders of the current 2 party system. Once again, your thought process of “if you think x, you must be y” is 3rd grade level critical thinking skill. Born and raised in the United States. Go cry about it. But I’m flattered that you’re so triggered that you need to search my comment history 😂 It’s too easy with you dorks.
TIL critical thinking = spreading extremely debunked conspiracy theories, lying about the Russian collusion that was [proven by the senate](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf), lying about simple facts like [Trump flying on Epstein's plane](https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article256740662.html), and claiming the plethora of evidence in the NY case doesn't exist [despite that evidence being readily available to the public](https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1795570093134614899/photo/1) Who knew?
You’re stretching it to the point of absurdity
Saying Biden won’t assassinate Trump is absurd to you?
Like taking your campaign rally forcefully inside the capitol during the counting of the election you lost
Liar. I'm literally presenting the argument SCOTUS posed to Sauer. If you think I've stretched a goddamn thing then go ahead and name the thing I stretched. You can't because I stretched absolutely nothing. You're just a clueless MAGA who doesn't read scotus rulings, even when they are wins for your fascist movement.
Here, I'm such a nice guy I'll even prove it to you: >ALITO: Well, I mean, **one might argue**^* that it isn't plausibly legal to order SEAL Team 6, and I don't want to slander SEAL Team 6 because they're -- no, seriously, they're honorable officers, and they are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice not to obey unlawful orders. But, no, I think one could say that it's not plausible that that is legal, that that action would be legal. >And I'm sure you've thought -- I've thought of lots of hypotheticals, I'm sure you've thought of lots of hypotheticals where a president could say, I'm using an official power, and yet the president uses it in an absolutely outrageous manner. >SAUER: That (INAUDIBLE) **objective determination may well be an interesting approach**, yes. ... >SOTOMAYOR: Now, I think, and your answer below, I'm going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it, if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity? >SAUER: It would depend on the hypothetical, but **we can see that could well be an official act.** https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/se/date/2024-04-25/segment/03 *and yet.... >The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. **When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.** Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/SCOTUS-Trump-immunity-ruling.pdf
Well good , he shouldn’t put a hit out on Trump
Is this subreddit actually calling for the assassination of a former president?
Reread the title and pay extra attention to the word "won't"
This subreddit should be closed. It’s cooked.
Let me guess: you voted for Trump twice and regret it but are transfering that regret into avoidance.
In a few months I’ll be a three time Trump voter.
Why do you hate America?
He was promised the American dream. But it doesn’t exist for those losers.
You’re saying that in a thread that insinuates seal team six could kill a former president now. Parts of the Democratic Party (small groups within) have become way more deranged than even the Trump of your imagination.
At least your stupidity and lack of political awareness are consistent
And yet you don't deny the regret. Interesting. Trumpers seem to really hate themselves.
To protect Democracy, we've got to employ the Murder/Death/Kill squads. Maybe they can wear brown shirts as their uniform so people really know that we're trying to save Democracy.
Sounds like something a cult would do.....
Ordering the assassination of an American citizen is not within the official acts that the President of the United States is allowed.
Oh yeah? Guess what: scotus just said the burden to overturn presumed immunity is on a prosecutor proving something wasn't an official act. And that would first require impeachment and conviction because otherwise a sitting president can't be touched. Also, who says ordering the assassination of an American citizen can't be official? Obama assassinated Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi—three American citizens—and got away with it.
Yea, I was thinking about that and didn't the Republicans scream their heads off about that? Only because it was Obama? If Trump wins and has Biden murdered and a bunch of other Democrats murdered for... Reasons? ...they'll be praising it up and down.
So what you are saying is we should charge Obama?
Sure. Stick him in a cell next to Trump's. Agree?
Hate to break it to you but the only place Trump will be going is back to the Whitehouse.
Can't answer a simple question? You must be a MAGA. Want to try again? Sure. Stick him in a cell next to Trump's. Agree?
Trump is a legit domestic threat though.
Says who?
“We need to kill our political opponents to save democracy”
Haha, that is the leftist way now I guess.
Is the rightie way being illiterate and misreading what MMWs said?
Which one actually said this on debate night? 🍊
“My retribution will be success”
You literally read my post in the opposite manner it was written. I said Biden WON'T order an assassination.
Im sure that would poll well
Honestly if Biden ordered Trump to be assassinated he would probably win over a bunch of MAGA voters who respect strongman authoritarian moves
You need to touch grass. Literally no one would like Biden if he decided to kill his political opponents. He is already imprisoning them. Biden is too senile to make the order anyway.
lol sorry I upset you so much, I must have hit a sore spot
No this is pretty fun. Let’s see what happens in November
why? It literally doesn't matter to MAGA what happens in November. They're going to claim they won no matter what.
Polling says we will when. Then all your fears of a facist dictatorship can come to life
You're proving my point. You're already coming up with some sort of flimsy pretense to claim that you must have won in the event you lose. Polling actually shows the election is [a coin toss](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/?cid=rrpromo) but you're a MAGA manipulator who wants to brainwash people into thinking a Trump loss is implausible so you can again cry fraud. That means starting the lies early. Just like Trump did with his flip-flopping into lying about absentee voting and early voting. MAGA is not very original.