No Stupid Questions

Aren't most of the claims of immunity because congress is supposed to be the one that holds the president accountable? So as long as the House doesn't hold the president to account, they can do anything... but clearly Democrats are more willing to prosecute those in their own party than Republicans... so it's far more likely that Biden would face consequences for his actions than Trump did.

Yes, but he’d never do that, because he’s a Democrat, and when the Republicans go low, the Democrats go high.

Theoretically, Biden could do it and not be prosecuted.

But if he ordered a member of the military to do it, they are required to refuse illegal orders. I don't know the rules about illegal orders but I bet this would fall under that. At the same time, the President can pardon people convicted in military court so that's not much of a deterrent.

Similarly if he ordered a civilian (say, CIA) to assassinate Trump, that person could be tried. But again, the President's pardon power makes federal charges not much of a threat.

BUT — the President cannot grant pardons for convictions in state courts. So anyone involved would be in trouble if it happened in a US state. And if the Supreme Court did not make the President immune from state-level prosecution, Biden could be tried for being involved... but it seems unlikely that they would go for "the President is immune from federal prosecution but not state prosecution."

Of course, all this show how insane and dangerous the idea of Presidential immunity is. It's a terrible idea.

Honestly, I think a really quick way to resolve this is for Biden to jail Trump just because...

If Trump wants out he'll need to abandon his case, or he can remain in jail and know that he won.

Basically it'd be win-win for sanity.

That's exactly why they won't make a decision until they know who they are giving that power to.

My tremendous girth is absolute

Biden could announce that he’s set up a deadman switch so that once the law is enacted, mercs would take out the people that ruled in favor of the law.

No. In the likely event of Trump getting off the hook, you can bet that SCOTUS will come up with some obscure and obfuscated legal hand waving that the judgment pertains to the matter at hand and does not constitute a precedent. The goal isn't to nullify laws that can be used against the Democrats later, but to keep the Republican nominee in the running, which can only be accomplished by temporarily displacing the law.

Nothing other than common decency stops a president from executing all rivals of their party, pardoning all those involved, then resigning from the office, turning it over to the VP, before Congress could impeach. Now if the only remaining members of Congress belong to the President's party, the odds of impeachment diminish significantly. In any case, only one person - the President - could ever be held responsible.

But anyone dumb enough to try this would start Civil War 2.0.

Yes, but then we have a whole new set of problems.

That was brought up as an argument to the supreme court.

I honestly think that's what should happen though if the court decides on full immunity, Biden should take out Trump and then help Congress change the rules so that he isn't a king anymore and go to jail.

It would be the single biggest win for democracy possible if the supreme court is stupid enough to end democracy as we know it.

An incredible sacrifice by both men, for the benefit of the country.

Absolutely, if presidential immunity was ruled absolute the peaceful transfer of power in the US would pretty much be doomed. The president is not a king, and America was founded in that spirit.

If proven in court yes, only way to stop him would be to impeach him. But good luck impeaching a man who can make his enemies disappear with a waive of his hand. Also, I don't think the Dems want thar look.