Imagine trying to use Trump’s ludicrous view of the courts in Russia

AS HE revved up in 2016 for his successful run to become US president, Donald Trump bragged about how he could actually shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and wouldn’t lose a single vote because of it.

That was stark enough, but after sitting in the Oval Office for four years, Trump, left, extended that extraordinary claim of ‘immunity’ to the courts.

A few weeks ago, Trump’s lawyers, in attempting to establish his immunity against charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election, argued before a Federal Appeals Court that he could order an assassination of a political opponent and, by virtue of being president, the criminal justice system and the courts would be powerless to do anything about it.

He got his answer this week with an unanimous decision of the Appeals Court rejecting his ‘absolute immunity’ absurdity. To use the Trumpian kindergarten language of exaggeration, it was the greatest ‘get lost’ in the history of US courts, ever.

In a ruling that distinguishes itself for clarity and principle, the court stated: ‘We cannot accept… the claim that a president has unbounded authority that would neutralise the most fundamental check on executive power.’

The judges also said: ‘It would be a striking paradox if the president who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with immunity.’

And that’s the difference between the rule of law as practised in the United States and Russia, where Boris Nadezhdin, dictator

Vladimir Putin’s only remaining would-be challenger in next month’s sham election for president, has been barred from taking part by the country’s election commission. What do you reckon his chances are with an appeal to Russia’s Supreme Court? Ya, I agree.

Surely all that, together with Tucker Carlson sycophantic interview with Putin, makes it utterly simple for us all to determine what side we’re on.