No. of Recommendations: 6
" The majority opinion explicitly states that there is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Ordering an assassination of a US citizen on US soil would clearly be an unofficial act. It’s outside the powers of the President to do that."
Under what authority did Obama use to justify drone strikes on U.S. citizens abroad fighting for the enemy? Or Bush's infamous deck of cards with various Iraqi leaders on it?
So how would it be different if Trump gets the White House Counsel to write up on official letterhead that Gavin Newsom (or whomever) is deemed to be a terrorist and enemy of the U.S. due to acts that are not in the interest of the U.S. and that he is to be captured or killed immediately? Sure Newsom can fight that order in court, but that takes months and would ultimately be decided by the Supreme court while Newsom disappears from the political scene fighting for his freedom. Even if the Supreme Court rules Trump's order illegitimate, it is already a year or two later. There is no punishment for Trump for harassing his political enemy for two years. It was an official act.
Heck, Trump can send out hundreds of these orders, even against SCOTUS justices who MIGHT oppose the legality of the orders. Sure, in the end they MIGHT get overturned, but there is no downside to him doing it. He is immune since they were official acts.
It doesn't even have to be political. Trump can write up an executive order requiring the government to pay him rent on his properties. Sure it will eventually get overturned and he won't get any benefit, but there is literally no downside for him. He can flood the field with all sorts of crap, almost all will eventually get overturned, but it will cause problems for everyone else and there is absolutely no downside for him. It was all official acts even if they were illegal.
