Trump's attorney argues that he should be immune from even ordering the assassination of a political enemy

Tweet

The stupidity continues. Trump has been claiming for years that he is immune from criminal prosecution for the January 6 insurrection attempt because he was president at the time and US presidents have "absolute immunity". Today his zillionth appeal on this issue was finally heard by the US Supreme Court. I was able to listen to some of the questioning by the justices b/c the students were working independently. (They couldn't hear it) Once again Trump's attorney was asked if immunity would protect a president if he ordered the murder of an opponent. The lawyer basically said yes. Ketanji Brown Jackson asked a great question about why Richard Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford if he was immune from criminal prosecution. Surprisingly even conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett seemed skeptical about the idea of absolute presidential immunity. I get the idea of immunity for presidents when they have to make tough decisions in their official capacity--war, attacks, responses to events, etc. Immunity for whatever they do during that time for personal gain? Not so much. There was extended questioning about what constitutes an official act vs a personal one today. It will be interesting to see how they eventually rule on this one.