And the thing is; technically, he's not wrong.
Eh, sort of but not really.
Trump V. United States did not grant a sitting president Carte Blanche to do whatever they want and say “presidential immunity!!!!1!” and then just win.
Presidents only have absolute immunity from prosecution for acts within their conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.
That certainly
could include the killing of a political opponent. But the killing of a political opponent for being a political opponent is not an Article II power, and so not granted that absolute immunity. And Courts aren’t stupid, discovery would pierce through any attempts to masquerade a politically motivated killing as something else.
Now, if this was shown to be purely under article II, e.g. the commander in chief clause, then sure, Biden would have absolute immunity. But even under that clause, the limits aren’t well established. Killing a political opponent isn’t an explicit power in the text, and I’m not sure history and tradition would support a finding of that power either. I could see some limited circumstances and fact patterns where SCOTUS rules it falls under the constitutional powers, such as if said political opponent was also leading a terrorist organization and was shot on the battlefield or something. But generally speaking, the notion that
Trump protects presidents from having opponents killed is hyperbolic nonsense from people too uneducated on the law.
In sum: Devon is a fat dumb fence sitting retard, who is wrong. American Law is a complicated thing, and dumb fat retarded Canadians should not speak on it.
