Donald Trump’s latest pronouncement, an overnight outburst directed at the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming he is entitled to “complete and total immunity” because he was president, even if he “crossed the line,” is being seen as a dangerous and deadly threat and a harbinger of what a second Trump presidential term would mean.
Critics on Thursday have been highly-focused on the ex-president’s remarks, which he posted just before 2 AM on his Truth Social website, with many now sounding the alarm.
“A President of the United States must have full immunity, without which it would be impossible for him/her to properly function,” Trump wrote, in all-caps. “Even events that ‘cross the line’ must fall under total immunity, or it will be years of trauma trying to determine good from bad.”
“All presidents must have complete & total presidential immunity, or the authority & decisiveness of a president of the United States will be stripped & gone forever. Hopefully this will be an easy decision. God bless the Supreme Court!” insisted the ex-president, a recently-adjudicated rapist who is facing 91 federal and state criminal charges in four cases across three jurisdictions, not to mention the civil trials that may end up costing him part of his real estate empire, and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars.
READ MORE: Backlash for ‘Pro-Putin’ Johnson After Admitting ‘Frequent’ Talks With Trump on Border Bill
New York University professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat “writes about fascism, authoritarianism, propaganda, and the threats these present to democracies around the world,” her bio reads. She has become a go-to expert on cable news and is an MSNBC columnist.
Professor Ben-Ghiat did not mince words on Thursday.
“Trump is telling Americans very clearly that he will be jailing and killing Americans,” she warned. “Anyone who votes for him is complicit with these future crimes because of this transparency & these threats. Americans cannot say they did not know ahead of time.”
“This is the dream of every authoritarian and why they do what they do to arrange things so they seem untouchable,” she added, pointing to her book, “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present.”
The Atlantic’s Brian Klaas, a University College London professor, wrote: “Let’s not mince words: Trump is literally endorsing the idea of a dictatorship in which presidents are shielded from prosecution, no matter which crimes they commit. He said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. He wants that to be legal precedent.”
Ben-Ghiat endorsed that post, writing: “100%.”
New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait notes that “every previous president has managed to conduct his job without ever having been assured he is free from prosecution. This only became a problem when we elected a career criminal as president.”
“The Trump argument is that as an elected president he should be permitted to commit any crimes whatsoever, and there should be no legal consequences. What do you call a system in which the chief executive is not bound by law?”
READ MORE: Trump Complains It Was ‘Ridiculous’ He Had ‘Follow the Laws’ and Leave Office
Just last week Trump’s attorney told judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of the ex-president’s claims of absolute immunity.
Trump and his attorneys argued he has “presidential immunity,” and therefore cannot be charged, prosecuted, or tried in the federal (and state) trials he is facing for election subversion and other unlawful acts surrounding the 2020 election and January 6 insurrection.
Asked if Trump, or another president, who “ordered S.E.A.L. Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” could be “subject to criminal prosecution,” the ex-president’s lawyer said only after he had been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Roll Call reported judges on the appeals court last week sounded “skeptical” of the immunity claims.