![\"Donald](\"https:\/\/www.newscorpse.com\/Pix\/Trump\/trump-baby-flag.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Trump’s signature whining consists entirely of his ridiculous belief that a president cannot function if he has to worry about being prosecuted for unlawful activities. But worrying about being held accountable for criminal acts (e.g. deterrence) is one of the main reasons we have laws. What’s more, not a single president prior to Trump has ever asked for or needed immunity in order to make the difficult decisions required of them.<\/p>\n
SEE THIS: Trump Says All Presidents Must Have \u2018Total Immunity\u2019 from Crimes \u2013 Except for President Biden<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n The Court specifically addressed certain ghastly hypotheticals in their questioning of Trump’s attorney. And his answers were troubling in the extreme. For instance…<\/p>\n Justice Sonia Sotomayor:<\/strong> If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can give immunity? Other equally disturbing scenarios that Trump’s lawyer sanctioned as deserving of immunity were staging a coup, fabricating false slates of electors, and selling nuclear secrets to foreign adversaries. Apparently no act of treason was too much for Trump or the right-wing Justices he appointed.<\/p>\n MORE HERE: Here\u2019s a Summary of the Crimes Trump\u2019s Lawyer Tells the Supreme Court He Has Immunity to Commit<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n What makes all of this ever more frightening is that it transcends the realm of the hypothetical. In an interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Trump’s former Attorney General, Bill Barr, was asked about a report that he was present when Trump suggested executing an actual person who was suspected of leaking information. Which led to the following exchange…<\/p>\n Collins:<\/strong> Do you remember that? Wow, according to this, it seems that Trump floated executing people on multiple occasions while President pic.twitter.com\/kxX1Dno8Ed<\/a><\/p>\n — Acyn (@Acyn) April 27, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nSauer:<\/strong> It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nBarr:<\/strong> I remember him being very mad about that. I actually don’t remember him saying, executing. But I wouldn’t dispute it, you know? I mean, it doesn’t sound — I mean, the President would lose his temper and say things like that. I doubt he would have actually carried it out. I don’t, you know.
\nCollins:<\/strong> But he would say that on other occasions? You said he would lose his temper.
\nBarr:<\/strong> The President, you know, the President had a — I think people sometimes took him too literally. And he would say things like, similar to that on occasions, to blow off steam. But I wouldn’t take him literally every time he did it.
\nCollins:<\/strong> Why not?
\nBarr:<\/strong> Because at the end of the day, it wouldn’t be carried out, and you could talk sense into him.
\nCollins:<\/strong> But just because it’s not carried out, and you could talk sense into him, doesn’t that still mean that the threat is there?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n