Surely when Donald Trump posted on his social media that Presidential immunity gives him the right to kill his political rivals, that statement was just an example of him making over the top claims that, of themselves, should be disqualify for anyone seeking the Presidency… and such garbage would never be heard inside a courtroom… right?


Trump lawyer John Sauer was this morning responding to a question put to him by Justice Sonia Sotomayor: concerning this very assertion.

“Justice Sotomayor raises assassination hypothetical.

Minutes into arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised the question of whether immunity extends to political assassinations.

The issue was discussed at length in a lower court hearing. Then, Trump attorney John Sauer suggested Trump could be immune, under certain circumstances.

“I’m going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it,” Sotomayor said. “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?”

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we could see that could well be an official act,” Sauer said.“



Sorry, John.

If the question had been that if the President orders the military, or someone else, to assassinate an enemy combatant who is in the process of carry out a deadly attack on U.S. citizens, or its military, you might have been on firmer ground on this – but even then there are rules of engagement that everyone in the chain of command, even the Commander-in-Chief must adhere too.

Huffington Post Senior Politics Reporter Igor Bobic was inside the courtroom listening to this outrage and reported it to his Twitter followers:

Yup. And, in just hearing this joke of a case they achieve Trump’s number one objective; delay, delay, delay.

Ya think?


I don’t.

💯 💯 💯

The sound:





This exchange is, at its core, an indictment of just how unserious this court is.

If SCOTUS will nor fulfill it’s core mission – defending our Constitution – by what right does it continue to exist?

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. If the s.c. rules in dingle berry’s favor, they are handing a weapon to President Biden such that 3, maybe 4 members of the s.c. will likely get a good case of gone should he decide to use it. I find it hilarious and expected that trump and the rest of his legion of goof balls don’t see how this can backfire on him/them very, very badly.

    What worries me: the s.c. deciding in trump’s favor, President Biden not agreeing presidents have this unlimited power and therefore not using it-preferably to round up all the J-6 traitors starting with trump and putting them all in the pokey. Great things could be done with such power. Great evil could be done as well. It’s a mixed bag. It is a pandora’s box that probably shouldn’t be opened.

    I wish I could confidently state the s.c. surely knows better than to give the executive branch unlimited power but I can’t. Three of the justices, thomas, beer bong and the vagina, just don’t have the brain power, the legal chops, to decide something so important in a logical and rational manner. Given alito’s penchant for rules/laws used by people from the 1600’s (?…way back anyway) who believe in witches f.f.s., he can’t be trusted to decide this rationally either. Not really sure about gorsuch although the dobbs decision certainly is a worrying sign. 6 justices take their marching orders from the fed. soc. and that is not a good thing–not for democracy, our constitution, not for any free-loving society.

    • Perhaps certain members of the Supreme Court should be reminded of the tale of Ernst Röhm and the “Night of the Long Knives.” Röhm was one of Hitler’s most ardent supporters right up until Hitler decided he was a bit too, well, power-hungry and might be after Hitler’s own position (whether Hitler made that decision completely on his own or if one of his other lackeys–probably Himmler–pressed Hitler into believing it is a bit up for dispute).
      If anyone on SCOTUS falls for this “absolute immunity” crap, they might want to remember Röhm’s fate. Most authoritarian leaders will, at some point, decide to remove certain “obstacles,” no matter how loyal those “obstacles” had been right up to the point they had to be removed. Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Castro, Kim (hell, the Kim family weren’t even safe from the “Glorious Leader”), the Shah, Pol Pot, you name the authoritarian and there’s probably at least one “purge” while they led their countries.

  2. Just an aside: I gave a Thumbs Up for Joseph’s comment above. He already had 3 but when I clicked, he suddenly had 6.

    • What all that means is that other people liked it, too, between the time the page loaded for you and when you clicked. This is Internet How It Works 101, jarvis. Thought you’d know that.

    • That’s caused by other people online at the same time as you who also clicked. When you clicked, your browser refreshed to reflect that you had, in fact, clicked and showed the new total on the newly refreshed page now showing.

  3. The Supremes only get a hypothetical when it’s close to home. Sotomayor would have done better by suggesting that wh=tih total immunity, a President could assassinate a Justice he believed to be corrupt. It’s equally accurate but much more personal. And there are justices, such as Thomas, Alito. and Kavanaugh, who must know that the entire nation, including the current President, has reason to think them corrupt.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here