Scarlet

Ooph. If the internal polls were showing RFK Jr siphoning off votes from Biden rather than the other way around even a smooth brain like Trump wouldn't take this tact.

This might be due for a poll question soon. "Who gets executed first?" since the Supreme Court is entertaining the idea that it's all a-ok. But fortunately the threat of impeachment will keep it from ever happening.

Federal officers can absolutely be charged in the conspiracy. Trump's not out of the woods yet in the example of Arizona. The prosecutor may have several reasons for not charging yet, one being that he may be using the chargers against the other co-conspirators to flip on Trump.

You're putting it past Trump to do that especially if he doesn't have sane people around him? That's some pretty thin ice for democracy to skate on especially if the court rules in his favor on immunity. He'll be even more emboldened next time without the possibility of any consequences. How about another hypothetical. One which really isn't hypothetical since his minions are tits deeps in it in Arizona. What about a president and his allies putting forth a slate of false electors?

He did but that didn't work out so well. In fact this court is going to have to once again ignore precedent if it decides to grant wide ranging immunity. Precedent set from the Nixon example. https://www.justsecurity.org/44264/supreme-court-justices-president-indicted/ “The dissents are wide of the mark to the extent that they imply that the Court today recognizes sweeping immunity for a President for all acts. The Court does no such thing. The immunity is limited to civil damages claims. Moreover, a President, like Members of Congress, judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides — all having absolute immunity — are not immune for acts outside official duties. Ante at 457 U. S. 753-755. Even the broad immunity of the Speech and Debate Clause has its limits.[fn3]” [fn3] “In United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501 (1972), we held that the Speech and Debate Clause does not prohibit prosecution of a Senator for accepting a bribe designed to influence his legislative acts.”. - Justice Burger “But there is no contention that the President is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts under the criminal laws enacted by Congress, or by the States, for that matter. Nor would such a claim be credible. " - Justice White

That gets sticky in a situation such as the one we went through only three years ago. Trump could have called out the military to back his coup attempt and as we've seen, his sycophants in Congress would never impeach him. Next time, if he's elected and his Project 2025 comes to fruition he'll have vetted loyalists to do his bidding. If an authoritarian we're to pull it off he'd never become a normal citizen. In our history we've never had a president need immunity from breaking the law while in office. There wouldn't be a never ending load of cases. That hasn't happened before. Frivolous cases would be bounced immediately.

The circular logic to authoritarianism Impeachment is not the vehicle to deal with, for example an insurrectionist, the judicial system is. But the judicial system is not that vehicle because the president has broad immunity and the president must first be impeached and convicted.

We're witnessing the death of American democracy. Everything else that is argued about on this board is moot if the executive branch is granted complete immunity.

Not that there was any doubt left but just to add to the body of evidence that the GOP is now a full fledged authoritarian party, here's the ridiculous and fascistic argument being put forth at the Supreme Court.

No way....