Mad idea: given that the US Supreme Court ruled that the President essentially has immunity from criminal prosecutions for acts during his term in office, could J. D. Vance plausibly shoot Donald Trump dead, thereby becoming President, and claim immunity?
-
@cstross As others have pointed out, killing the incumbent while VP would not be an ‘official act as president’, ergo immunity would not apply.
Vance could bludgeon Trump unconscious, assume office based on Trump's incapacity, and THEN kill him, reducing his potential culpability to assault rather than murder.
If the US were Nepal, it might be more clearcut. As the events of 1 June 2001 established, regicide is no barrier to assuming the kingship (although a self-administered 9mm bullet is).
-
Mad idea: given that the US Supreme Court ruled that the President essentially has immunity from criminal prosecutions for acts during his term in office, could J. D. Vance plausibly shoot Donald Trump dead, thereby becoming President, and claim immunity?
(I know this is very silly and Won't Happen for several reasons, but is there a legal fig-leaf he could hide behind here?)
@cstross : from strategical perspective, given age and health of Trump, I would send him lot of prostitutes and try to make him do a Félix Faure.
Still wondering why nobody is doing that or why Trump is surviving those attempts.
-
Mad idea: given that the US Supreme Court ruled that the President essentially has immunity from criminal prosecutions for acts during his term in office, could J. D. Vance plausibly shoot Donald Trump dead, thereby becoming President, and claim immunity?
(I know this is very silly and Won't Happen for several reasons, but is there a legal fig-leaf he could hide behind here?)
@cstross That's just "death by natural causes", as Pratchett pointed out.
-
Mad idea: given that the US Supreme Court ruled that the President essentially has immunity from criminal prosecutions for acts during his term in office, could J. D. Vance plausibly shoot Donald Trump dead, thereby becoming President, and claim immunity?
(I know this is very silly and Won't Happen for several reasons, but is there a legal fig-leaf he could hide behind here?)
@cstross For real actual lawyer here, and the problem with this question is that it presumes the Supreme Court is functioning as intended. It's not and there's no way to predict how this would play out. For all intents and purposes, the United States is no longer controlled by rule of law.
-
@cstross As others have pointed out, killing the incumbent while VP would not be an ‘official act as president’, ergo immunity would not apply.
Vance could bludgeon Trump unconscious, assume office based on Trump's incapacity, and THEN kill him, reducing his potential culpability to assault rather than murder.
If the US were Nepal, it might be more clearcut. As the events of 1 June 2001 established, regicide is no barrier to assuming the kingship (although a self-administered 9mm bullet is).
@angusm I’m imagining some sort of comedy of errors involving a cabinet secretary tripping due to their ill-fitting shoes while wielding a spoon.
-
@joat Tribunal of judges. There are precedents. (Cf. the Diplock courts in NI during the Troubles, due to fear of jury intimidation. Which would also be a factor in a royal trial ... )
-
@cstross For real actual lawyer here, and the problem with this question is that it presumes the Supreme Court is functioning as intended. It's not and there's no way to predict how this would play out. For all intents and purposes, the United States is no longer controlled by rule of law.
@jshawthorne Yep, "rule of law no longer applies" is very clear right now (and it was Trump whose appointees led the charge).
-
@etchedpixels @cstross Mm. He'd still be chargeable in principle by the state or territory. Not that they would.
-
@cstross As others have pointed out, killing the incumbent while VP would not be an ‘official act as president’, ergo immunity would not apply.
Vance could bludgeon Trump unconscious, assume office based on Trump's incapacity, and THEN kill him, reducing his potential culpability to assault rather than murder.
If the US were Nepal, it might be more clearcut. As the events of 1 June 2001 established, regicide is no barrier to assuming the kingship (although a self-administered 9mm bullet is).
@angusm @cstross We still haven't tested the legal theory about whether or not the president can pardon themselves
So he could do it, pardon himself for it, and then dare the court system to hold him accountable
(But vance wouldn't pull the trigger - more likely scenario he convinces a Secret Service agent to do it "for the good of the country" with the promise of a pardon once he assumes office. Then we get to see if 'felony murder' charges apply if you're powerful enough.)
-
@jshawthorne Yep, "rule of law no longer applies" is very clear right now (and it was Trump whose appointees led the charge).
@cstross It is very hard to explain how demoralizing it is to be a lawyer in America these days.
-
@etchedpixels @cstross Mm. He'd still be chargeable in principle by the state or territory. Not that they would.
@jmax @etchedpixels The Crown is the wellspring from which the law springs, in the UK—the monarch can't be charged with *anything*. (QE2 driving into her late 80s was a headache for her police bodyguards.)
-
Mad idea: given that the US Supreme Court ruled that the President essentially has immunity from criminal prosecutions for acts during his term in office, could J. D. Vance plausibly shoot Donald Trump dead, thereby becoming President, and claim immunity?
(I know this is very silly and Won't Happen for several reasons, but is there a legal fig-leaf he could hide behind here?)
@cstross
July 2028 is probably pencilled in. -
@jmax @etchedpixels The Crown is the wellspring from which the law springs, in the UK—the monarch can't be charged with *anything*. (QE2 driving into her late 80s was a headache for her police bodyguards.)
@cstross @jmax @etchedpixels Cromwell would like a word...
