Could Trump Murder Nancy Pelosi on National TV with Immunity?

The SCOTUS decided to hear the Trump lawyer's appeal for immunity, thus delaying the January 6th trial. This was the worst decision in the history of the United States Supreme Court. The DC circuit court laid this out very clearly, knowing that there would be an appeal. In the DC court, Trump's lawyers claimed that Trump could have his political rival assassinated, but could not be prosecuted, and could only be impeached.

https://abovethelaw.com/2024/02/dc-...ssinate-trumps-ridiculous-immunity-arguments/

Judge Florence Pan, who forced him to concede that his argument meant that a sitting president could dispatch SEAL Team 6 to murder his political opponent — a political act that is also a crime — and evade prosecution if Congress failed to impeach and convict him.

So, per the title of this thread, let's take this logical argument to another level. Could Trump murder Nancy Pelosi on national television, and be immune from prosecution? Evidently these scenarios aren't too ridiculous for this Supreme Court. The choices are yes, no, and maybe. A "Maybe" answer would mean that there may be a scenario where the SCOTUS would allow immunity.

 

do you mean would his worshipers still support him?

 

It may sound incredible, but I think some would still support him. But no, that's not what I meant. This is about the SCOTUS. My contention is that they never should have delayed the 1/6 trial for an immunity claim.

 

What if there were no stupid questions? would this thread disappear?

 

I think it's a stupid question too, but evidently the SCOTUS doesn't, because the DC Circuit court asked a similar question, and Trump's attorney told them that, "Yes, Trump would have immunity".

 

Gee, Trump's lawyer defending Trump's "immunity". Imagine my surprise

 

How about the Supreme Court virtually considering Trump's lawyer's claim? Is that a surprise?

 

What about it?

 

I can't answer a question that is answered with a question.

 

You asked me "what about . . . ." I'm just asking what you point is. This is not rocket science.

 

The original question was easy to understand. I'll just assume that you're evading an answer.

 

Assume whatever you want.

 

Even Clarence Thomas has rejected the immunity plea in the past, when the actions were for "nonofficial conduct". It will be interesting to see how he votes.

Thomas wrote. “But we have rejected absolute immunity from damages actions for a President’s nonofficial conduct, Clinton v. Jones (1997).”

 

It is probably safe to assume that Nancy pulled a gun on DJT before things went South for her.
Any other assumption would be unrealistic.
It may also be unrealistic to assume that Nancy would miss.

 

Obama assassinated Americans whom intelligence agencies said were not an active threat without any judicial process or approval, and nothing happened to him. The same people making these Trump Seal Team 6/assassination claims were the same ones who defended Obama doing this very thing.

 

No comprendo...

 

No, Trump couldn't get away with killing Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is part of the protected class of the political elite.

On the other hand, Trump's exit day storming of the capital building, by unruly mobs, could be considered Trump trying to kill Pelosi, so he already got away with it, though I don't think this aspect of the event has ever been brought up.

 

Other people will be able understand though.

 

'Collateral damage'.

https://www.theguardian.com › commentisfree › 2013 › feb › 05 › obama-kill-list-doj-memo

1. Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US ...
   Feb 5, 2013When the New York Times back in April, 2010 first confirmed the existence of Obama's hit list, it made clear just what an extremist power this is, noting: "It is extremely rare, if not ...
   https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

 

That is true. Probably explains why most Presidents go grey fast after taking office.

1. https://www.theatlantic.com › politics › archive › 2012 › 10 › how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american › 264028
   How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American
   How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American. Asked about the strike that killed him, a senior adviser to the president's campaign suggests he should've "had a more responsible ...
   https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

 

There was a lot of outcry over the son, who was collateral damage. However, his father was an intended target of the assassination. He was an American citizen who the administration admits was not an active threat at the time of his assassination. After the information about the assassination went public they were asked how they can assassinate Americans and they basically said the attorneys Obama paid said it was okay. They never ran it by the courts. Never had any approval. Obama just straight up had a kill list that included Americans that he ordered killed in their beds.

The victims weren't charged with crimes, they never brought it before a judge to have it adjudicated. The Obama admin just wrote themselves a memo saying they believed it was okay and that was that. Targeted killings of Americans who were not in imminent danger of harming anyone.

These threads asking what would happen if Trump killed someone or had someone killed are kind of laughable. They don't need to use fantasy, they can use real events. The President before him did that.

 

Conspiracy crackpot theories.

 

My God I tell you it must be a certified Nancy Drew maybe murder mystery?

He could have also caught covid and sneezed in the direction of a kitten.

When you run out of stuff he might have done.... Start spinning yarns about Nancy Drew's kitty

 

This has to do with Immunity. Pelosi was just put forth as an example. You can substitute any name of a Trump adversary - Schumer, Schiff, etc.

 

Hypothetical - you saw the following right?
Trump's lawyers claimed that Trump could have his political rival assassinated, but could not be prosecuted, and could only be impeached.
So it's a question of immunity. I contend the SCOTUS has no business even considering immunity, and they know it.