The latest ruling by the kangaroo Supreme Court on presidential immunity put the credible legal world in turmoil.
Alito and his posse have turned the presidency into a kingship, with almost unlimited power to do anything they choose as long as it's considered an "official act."
David Leavitt reminded us of a horrific episode between Trump and former Defense Secretary Mark Esper during the George Floyd protests.
O'DONNELL: What was the most disturbing thing that the president said during that meeting on June 1?
ESPER: The president is ranting at the room. He's using a lot of foul language, you know, you all are F-ing losers, right? And then he says it to the vice president, Mike Pence. He's using the same language, and he's looking at Pence.
O'DONNELL: He called Mike Pence an F-ing loser?
ESPER: He didn't call him directly, but he was looking at him when he was saying it. And it really caught my attention. And I thought that we're at a different spot now. He's going to finally give a direct order to deploy paratroopers into the streets of Washington, D.C., and I'm thinking with weapons and bayonets, and this would be horrible.
O'DONNELL: What specifically was he suggesting that the U.S. military should do to these protesters?
ESPER: And he says, can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something? And he's suggesting that that's what we should do, that we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.
O'DONNELL: The commander-in-chief was suggesting that the U.S. military shoot protesters.
ESPER: Yes, in the streets of our nation's capital. That's right. Shocking.
O'DONNELL: We have seen in other countries a government use their military to shoot protesters. What kind of governments are those?
ESPER: Well, those are banana republics, right, or authoritarian regimes. We all remember Tienanmen Square, right, in China.
If Trump signed what he considered an official act, would murdering US citizens protesting in the streets of America be considered legal?
Would sending in the troops and declaring martial law when Trump refuses to concede the election be a legal act? According to the Supreme Court, it would absolutely be. And immune from prosecution. What a frakking nightmare.
I understand the evangelical Supreme Court hates the left, but shooting them seems a bit over the top.
