Biden can now order Trump assassinated, legally

Summary

The transcript discusses the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity, questioning the legal actions President Biden could take against Donald Trump. It raises hypothetical scenarios, including assassination and election manipulation, to explore the boundaries of presidential immunity. The discussion also touches on the potential for Trump's lawyers to argue that his actions were official, thus immune from prosecution, highlighting a contentious debate about executive power and its limits.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The Supreme Court has ruled on presidential immunity, suggesting that Donald Trump may have immunity for official acts and possibly pseudo-official acts depending on lower court decisions.
• 🤔 The script raises a hypothetical question about the extent of presidential powers, asking if President Biden could legally have Trump assassinated under the guise of national security and claim immunity.
• 👀 It highlights the potential for a double standard in how immunity is perceived, suggesting that Republicans may view it differently based on who is in office.
• 🚫 The speaker rejects the extreme hypothetical scenario and instead poses a less dramatic one, questioning whether Biden could manipulate election results under the pretense of an official act.
• 🗳️ The discussion touches on the direct relation between a president's role and election outcomes, implying that election interference could be seen as an official act.
• 📜 The script mentions the possibility of lawyers arguing that certain actions, such as election manipulation, are official acts, thus granting the president immunity.
• 📺 The next segment of the discussion will reportedly focus on Trump's lawyers arguing that his actions related to fake electors were official acts tied to his role as president.
• 🎯 The argument is made that Trump's lawyers will claim he was acting on his belief that he won certain states, thus casting electoral votes for himself based on that belief.
• 🔍 The script anticipates a real challenge in defining the limits of executive power and the potential for abuse of presidential immunity.
• 👮‍♂️ It points out the contradiction in conservative stances, where traditionally small government advocates are now defending the Supreme Court's decision and Trump's actions.
• 📉 The final takeaway questions whether Trump will argue that all his indictments were based on official acts, suggesting a potential strategy for his defense.

Q & A

What is the central issue discussed in the transcript regarding the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity?

The central issue is the Supreme Court's ruling that Donald Trump may have total immunity for official presidential acts and possibly for pseudo-official acts, depending on lower courts' decisions, and the implications this might have on the actions of the current president, Joe Biden.

What is the hypothetical scenario presented where President Biden could potentially be immune for an extreme action against Trump?

The hypothetical scenario is that if President Biden officially determines that Donald Trump is a threat to national security, he could potentially order Trump's assassination or imprisonment and claim immunity for these actions as official presidential acts.

Why might some people argue that manipulating election results could be considered an official act by President Biden?

Some might argue that since the outcome of an election directly relates to the role of the president, any action taken by President Biden to influence the election results, such as ordering voting machine companies to declare him the winner, could be seen as an official act.

What is the concern about the potential misuse of presidential immunity as suggested in the transcript?

The concern is that the concept of presidential immunity could be expanded to cover actions that are not in the best interest of the country or are even illegal, simply because they are framed as 'official acts' by the president.

What is the role of lawyers in this context according to the transcript?

Lawyers could potentially argue that certain actions taken by the president, even if they are controversial or questionable, are official acts and therefore the president should be immune from legal consequences.

What is the reference to 'fake electors' in the transcript about?

The reference is to the attempt by Trump's lawyers to argue that sending slates of fake electors to states like Arizona and Wisconsin, despite Biden winning the popular vote there, was an official act related to Trump's role as president.

How does the transcript suggest that the actions of small government conservatives might be hypocritical?

The transcript suggests that small government conservatives, who have traditionally argued against executive power, are hypocritical because they defended Trump's actions during his presidency and are now defending the Supreme Court's decision on immunity, which expands executive power.

What is the implication of Trump's lawyers arguing that his actions were based on his belief that he won the states?

The implication is that Trump's lawyers are trying to frame his actions as legitimate and part of his official duties as president, despite the fact that his claims of winning were disputed.

What is the potential legal strategy suggested by the transcript for Trump regarding his indictments?

The potential legal strategy suggested is that Trump might argue that all actions for which he has been indicted were official acts of his presidency, and therefore he should be immune from prosecution.

What is the broader issue raised in the transcript about the interpretation and application of presidential immunity?

The broader issue is the potential for the interpretation and application of presidential immunity to be manipulated or expanded in ways that could allow a president to act without legal accountability, even for actions that are not in line with the law or the best interests of the country.

How does the transcript suggest that the Supreme Court's decision might be politically motivated?

The transcript suggests that the decision might be politically motivated by noting that conservatives who typically argue for less executive power are now defending a decision that expands immunity for presidential actions.