TLDR: there are no qualifying limitations on presidential immunity
Not only does any US president now have complete immunity from “official” actions(with zero qualifying restrictions or definitions), but if those actions are deemed “unofiicial”, no jury is legally allowed to witness the evidence in any way since that would interfere with the now infinitely broad “official” presidential prerogatives.
Furthermore, if an unofficial atrocity is decided on during an official act, like the president during the daily presidential briefing ordering the army to execute the US transexual population, the subsequent ordered executions will be considered legally official presidential acts since the recorded decision occurred during a presidential duty.
There are probably other horrors I haven’t considered yet.
Then again, absolute immunity is absolute immunity, so I don’t know how much threat recognition matters here.
If the US president can order an action, that action can be legally and officially carried out.
Not constitutionally, since the Constitution specifically holds any elected politician subject to the law, but legally and officially according to the supreme court, who has assumed higher power then the US Constitution to unconstitutionally allege that the US President is absolutely immune from all legal restrictions and consequences.
That’s a vaguely optimistic way to think about civil war, but I’m doubtful that
people perpetually scared enough to find owning guns in urban environments necessary are going to disagree with the fear-mongering rhetoric a president-king invokes.
owning guns translates into any sort of effective resistance
it was worth killing children and civilians for decades in the hopes of an eventual opportunity to fight something
civilians with their own guns won’t be choosing their own targets
a sliver of power finally used to destroy a country is more important than the peaceful maintenance of representative democracy.