Sealed with a Kiss of Death

Last Friday, a friend wrote to ask my thoughts about the Supreme Court oral arguments on presidential immunity the day before.  I didn’t want to get into it then – nor now – because I would write an opus.  After all, I thought it was galling that they even took the case, rather than just leave the unanimous appeals court ruling.  But once taking the case, the conservatives sat politely as Trump’s lawyer said that under certain hypotheticals a President should get immunity for ordering an opponent killed or for ordering a coup!!!!!!!!!!
 
But there was one small perspective I did want to address.  It’s something that no member of the Court  called out, and I didn’t even hear any analyst mention either.  But if someone did, they were the exception.  It was about when Justice Samuel Alito harped on a hypothetical that if the President went to Navy Seals to murder an opponent, they would never do so because the Navy Seals were sworn to uphold the Constitution and to disobey illegal orders, because they are so noble.  While that got some light pushback, what I didn’t hear from anyone was”
 
“Putting aside that Trump wanted the military to seize voting machines…and ruminated about having Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mike Milley killed…or wanted to install Jeffrey Clark as acting Attorney General to carry out his coup plans, making all this not a mere ‘hypothetical’ debate, but a real-world serious one --
 
Are you suggesting that there is no concept of “traitor”?  That no member of the military, no matter how much they swear their duty has ever gone against their oath and done something illegal?  History is full of such people.  The United States has its own, including famously Benedict Arnold.  Or more recently, high-ranking FBI agent Robert Hanssen who was a spy for Russia and turned over volumes of critical material to them.  Or just last year, 21-year-old Jack Teixeira, of the Air National Guard, was arrested for leaking classified documents on the Internet.  They all swore oaths not to do such things. 
 
But further, if you think only that the military is immune for being a threat to break its sworn oath, are you suggesting that if Trump told Gen. Michael Flynn to kill someone he believed was a threat, that Flynn – a general, who has given support to white supremacists and who President Obama had warned Trump not to hire – absolutely wouldn’t do it, or have someone else to do it??
 
“But…but…but even more to the point – in fact, the very point -- why on earth are you obsessing about the Navy Seals???  Why couldn’t Trump just go to a lowly private who he knows from reading social media postings is an extreme-right supporter and order him as Commander-in-Chief to kill someone?  Maybe even offer him a promotion to Captain.  Or Lt. General.  The January 6 Insurrection had active-service members of the military arrested for violently breaking into the Capitol, an action that helped push the attempted overthrow of the government, and it seems like some might have been honored to get the order.  Indeed, it was specifically because so many of them insisted that the very reason they were there in the first place and breached the U.S. Capitol was specifically because they said they got an order from their Commander-in Chief.  Or -- why think that Trump would even have to order someone in the military at all?  Stewart Rhodes, the convicted leader of the Oath Keepers who is now in prison for sedition after organizing a violent attack on the Capitol, is just a private citizen – though a former Army paratrooper.   It’s difficult to imagine he would have happily acted on an order to kill if given by Trump.  There have been at least 81 active, or former members of the military and police arrested so far for participating in the Jan. 6 Insurrection.  But then, why not make it easy, take out the risk of a private citizen having moral qualms about killing someone… and just hire a hit man?!  After all, it’s well-known that Trump has mob contacts from his days in real estate.  So, he must ‘know a guy who knows a guy.’
 
“Theoretical?  Sworn an oath?  Honor-bound?  Seriously, Justice Alito???  If you can’t even trust the President of the United States, with a sworn oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution to not make your theoretical order to kill someone or order a coup – let alone a realistic one! – why in the universe would you think a member of the Navy Seals or anyone in the military wouldn’t accept the illegal, reprehensible, outrageous, treasonous order a President theoretically – or in real life – makes? 
 
“For goodness sake, Mr. Justice, we have a member of the Supreme Court – maybe even two, including yourself -- who are okay accepting bribes and hearing cases they have personal involvement in!”

It was the focus on “Navy Seals” who would never ever go against their oath, and so the Constitution is safe (never mind that the President has a sworn oath to protect the Constitution and laws and safety of America, and an acting Attorney General does, too, and we know  how much Trump tried to subvert that) which drove me up the wall.  As you may have figured out by this point.

There was a great deal of excellent analysis and criticism of Thursday's hearing.  But on this specific Alito point yammering about the Navy Seals would save us, you'd think -- or hope -- that most people analyzing the Supreme Court that day (and I do hope there was at least one), let alone a member of the High Court itself would have said, "Hold on there.  The Navy Seals??>  You're leaving the protection of democracy entirely on a rogue president not realizing that he doesn't have to choose the Navy Seals only and no one else to carry out his illegal acts, but if he did, that not one Navy Seal would ever -- ever! -- say, 'Hmm, well, y'know if the President is ordering it...'  Seriously, Justice, Alito, seriously???"
 
And that’s me not wanting to get into the Supreme Court oral arguments.