Oh really? Now that's a bad thing, huh?
Donald Trump is sparking fears among those who understand the inner workings of the Pentagon that he would convert the nonpartisan U.S. military into the muscular arm of his political agenda as he makes comments about dictatorship and devalues the checks and balances that underpin the nation's two-century-old democracy.
A circle of appointees independent of Trump's political operation steered him away from ideas that would have pushed the limits of presidential power in his last term, according to books they've written and testimony given to Congress. Most were gone by the end. In a new term, many former officials worry that Trump would instead surround himself with loyalists unwilling to say no.
Let me know what you think will happen if Congress refuses to fund Biden's war for his funders and paymasters in Urkaine. I think he'll just assert the unilateral authority to give US money to a foreign country. What do you think, NBC "News"?
Trump has raised fresh questions about his intentions if he regains power by putting forward a legal theory that a president would be free to do nearly anything with impunity -- including assassinate political rivals -- so long as Congress can't muster the votes to impeach him and throw him out of office.
This is farcical, as the great Matt Taibbi reported. This claim that "Trump says he can assassinate US citizens and not be prosecuted for it" is entirely a fiction of the leftwing propaganda media.
Reporters keep plunging to bizarre new lows in coverage of Donald Trump. The new jam: his lawyer argued presidents can assassinate rivals. Except he didn't, at all.
Trump's "election interference" criminal case is on hold, pending an appeal heard by a trio of judges this week. Citing a traditional interpretation of Article II of the Constitution, the former president is asserting he must be impeached and convicted in the Senate before he can be criminally tried for any official act.
MSNBC, in an article by former New York County prosecutor Jordan Rubin, unsuprisingly panned the claim in, "Trump's immunity argument highlights the absurdity of his position." The relatively restrained Rubin wrote:
Donald Trump didn't have a strong chance of winning his immunity claim heading into oral arguments Tuesday in Washington, and the argument itself showed why... Judge Florence Pan pointed out that, under Trump's theory, a president could order SEAL Team Six to murder the president's political rivals and, so long as they're not convicted in an impeachment trial, they're off the hook.
That's not really Trump's argument highlighting the absurdity of anything, and more like Judge Pan's doing so, but whatever. Rubin also said Trump is a good bet to lose his argument, adding, "Trump lawyer John Sauer asked the panel to pause any decision against the former president" while "he challenges it on higher appeal."
Trump is arguing that he cannot be prosecuted for any act in furtherance of his constitutional mandate. Guaranteeing the security and accuracy of election results does fall within his mandate. Straight-up murdering people because he's Big Mad does not.
But the propaganda media not only distorts his argument, but then they argue that Trump is claiming "I can whack a guy if I feel like it and it's all legit."
...
Even more incredible was a parade of reports appearing to claim Trump himself argued the "SEAL Team Six" idea. "Sen. Schatz warns of 'new turn' for Trump with 'Seal Team 6' claim," was the header for a Chris Hayes interview of Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz. Schatz said it was "one thing" when Trump was "essentially engaging in stochastic terrorism," but here "the official position of Trump's lawyers is going to be that he could order a murder of his political rivals using SEAL Team 6."
Wow. Really? Yes, according to Newsweek, which wrote in its opening paragraph:
Democratic Senator Brian Schatz has claimed "American democracy is at stake" in the upcoming presidential election after Donald Trump's attorney argued presidential immunity would extend to political assassinations during a Washington, D.C. court case.
There's a long list of similar headlines. The Hill: "Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity." Mediaite: "Trump Lawyer Argues Presidents CAN Order Seal Team 6 To Assassinate Rivals In Stunning Appeals Courtroom Exchange." The Bulwark, semi-humorously: "Trump's Lawyers Argue Biden Can Assassinate Him."
Maryland's Jamie Raskin, gaining fast in the always-heated race for a rep as the dumbest current member of congress, fretted to fellow gentleman-scholar Wolf Blitzer on CNN:
As a member of Congress, my first thought was, well, then if the president is going to order out for the assassination of his political rivals, and say there's a narrow margin in the Senate of a two or three vote in the opposition party, what's to keep him from murdering members of the Senate to make sure that he doesn't get convicted there in order to deny a two-thirds majority?
See Taibbi for reportage on what really happened. This leftwing judge kept asserting that Trump's theory would mean that that he can whack anyone he likes, and his team kept saying, "No, it doesn't mean that at all."
And the media's take? "Trump argues he should be allowed to kill people like fucking Jason Vorhees at summer camp."
Back to NBC "News:"
Now, bracing for Trump's potential return, a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers is quietly devising plans to try to foil any efforts to expand presidential power, which could include pressuring the military to cater to his political needs.
Oh you mean an extraconstitutional, election-"fortifying" unelected "resistance" is organizing to stop a duly-elected president from executing the office to which he was fairly elected by the American people?
I mean, you're doing that... again?
The plan includes threats to (checks notes).. use the power of the state to harass and prosecute Trump's appointees.
Wow, we sure don't want Trump using the power of the state to harass and prosecute his enemies!
Those taking part in the effort told NBC News they are studying Trump's past actions and 2024 policy positions so that they will be ready if he wins in November. That involves preparing to take legal action and send letters to Trump appointees spelling out consequences they'd face if they undermine constitutional norms.
1, Trump is bad because he might prosecute political enemies
2, We're going to keep Trump in line by threatening to prosecute his political allies
Democracy cannot survive with half of the country insisting on the right to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.
Democracy is already dead, thanks to the left.
A poll finds the public split on whether Biden's disastrous economy or "protecting democracy" is the more important issue.
Bear in mind, Biden voters have literally no positive reasons to vote for this catastrophic stroke patient except for protecting abortion-on-demand and "protecting democracy." So obviously all Democrats will claim that "protecting democracy" is super-important.
That said, the fact that 50% of likely voters say that "protecting democracy" i more important is a bad sign for Trump. That means that 50% of the public is announcing they'll vote for Biden, because obviously no one but Biden voters would say that this is the more important imperative.
Likely voters across the political aisle diverge on whether having a strong economy or functioning democracy is a bigger concern over the next few years, according to a new CBS/YouGov poll.
Fifty percent of the total likely voters polled said having a strong economy is the higher concern, while the other half of respondents said having a functioning democracy was the bigger concern.