So the supreme court already ruled the president cannot be held accountable for anyone they kill.
The vice president becomes the president instantly if the president dies.
What is preventing any vice president from waiting until day 1 of their parties presidency, and then murdering the president? And then instantly pardoning themself?
The action would have been done as vice-president, not president. Vice-presidents are held accountable. This is why Trump got in trouble for defamation of E. Jean Carroll.
He defamed her as president and called it an official act. The case was put on indefinite hold. Then he said the same things while he wasn’t president. A new case was brought against him and he was found liable. Then, Carroll’s lawyer asked the original case to be resumed arguing that Trump’s statements couldn’t be an official act of the president since he performed the same action while he wasn’t president. The courts agreed and resumed the case and he was found liable again.
Also, impeachment. One would like to think that even today, a president-through-killing-the-president-while-being-vice-president would be impeached and removed by congress, but who knows.
Yes, but Republicans do what they want with no consequences, so check and mate.
deleted by creator
You grossly oversimplified what the Supreme Court basically “said,” and then posited a ridiculous assertion on top of it.
I’m sure analogous situations have come up many times in history, such as in the Roman empire. The Borgia clan in the Italian Renaissance got a possibly unjust reputation for stuff like that. Machiavelli’s “The Prince” was supposedly inspired by Cesare Borgia.
Part of the answer has been to be careful who you pick as VP. Trump picked Pence partly because Pence (at the time) seemed to have no presidential ambitions. It worked reasonably well, since Pence could have (politically) put the shiv into Trump during either of Trump’s two impeachments. If Trump becomes president again, he’ll likely get impeached at least a couple more times, so we’ll see if Vance is similarly loyal.
so we’ll see if Vance is similarly loyal.
Yeah. Considering how Trump may have actually intended to have Pence killed during the January 6 insurrection, my money is on “not particularly loyal”.
I like to think there’s still hope that people around Trump and Putin will recognize the clear signs of dementia and not drag the world to war, this time.
I had the same question about the Prince of Wales and the King
William would become king, but then things get weird. I strongly suspect there’d be a rushed act of parliament on behalf of the dead Charles, to whom the parliament was loyal, in order to - ahem - reign in this inexplicably power-mad William and perhaps even try to seek to apply some kind of punishment.
I could see a cross-party vote to not recognise William as king because of the grievous act and instead choose to recognise the next in line who was not in favour of that grievous act. This might mean that parliament chooses to recognise George as king and seek to appoint a regent in his stead until he was of age, for example.
Whatever was to happen I don’t think there’d be a civil war over it, but there’d probably be a referendum on becoming a republic fairly soon afterwards so the whole thing could be sidestepped.
If it turned out William wasn’t acting alone then I still think there’d be an investigation as to who was in favour and maybe expunge William’s line from succession altogether… but then I don’t think the powers that be would want Harry as king either. Or Andrew.
Edward would be unwilling, but I think he’d make a good, if quiet, king.
Anne would be f**king hilarious.
But all of this is moot. The chance of Wills becoming a homicidal maniac is about as likely as his gran coming back from the grave and doing the job herself.
Or just shoot William and make George King. Lol.
There should be a Shakespeare play with that plot.
In a trump/vance administration… Not a damn thing
Probably a good bet it will happen
It works for the Klingons.
Well, let’s wait and see when it happens. There’s a first time for everything.
That’s not what the Supreme Court said, though. Only official acts have absolute immunity. Murder is not usually an official act.
And as always, if you’re talking about a coup d’etat, the question is if the military or spy agencies will kill you before, during, or after it. When the rule of law is out the window, you must expect physical violence.
Is trying to overthrow an election an official act?
it’s much harder to prove because the official acts part also includes all the evidence and testimony needed to prosecute.
So if you can’t use evidence from official communication to prove that the treason happened. That makes the prosecution of presidents very difficult. It’s going to be extremely difficult for a prosecution to tell a coherent story to a jury without including any “official” acts as part of the crime.
An official act is defined as a purposefully undefinable and thus uncheckable label the temporarily-illegitimate supreme court can apply to any action without reason or precedent so that donald trump can do whatever he wants.
The president Can’t be held accountable is one thing. The vp as far as I know (if the vp killed the president) would need certain people in the cabinet to make him president. They’d have to sign off on it.
But of they signed off on it then really at this point nothing stops it
😏
I believe the VP only becomes “acting President” and doesn’t assume the actual office until sworn in by a proper authority (usually the Chief Justice of SCOTUS but I believe contingency plans exist). So it would be interesting to figure out when the immunity attaches.
