In a very good piece by Elie Mystal about Defense Secretary Hegseth’s recent murder spree, he writes (boldface mine):
What it all comes down to is this: If we’re not at war, Hegseth is a murderer; if we are at war, Hegseth is still a murderer. Hegseth and MAGA keep trying to throw up justifications to allow them to kill 83 defenseless people without evidence, and I’m telling you that the laws are designed specifically to prevent that from being OK.
In a more general sense, this is something that has become all too common in the Trump era. There is a belief in the validity of legal casuistry that defies the obvious meaning of the law. For example, there were (still are) Trumpist apparatchiks who argued that the 22nd Amendment did not prevent Trump from running for a third term, even though it’s obvious what the 22nd Amendment says, as well as the original intent (remember that?) of its drafters.
So remember, when Trumpists make a ridiculous argument, we might have to take the argument seriously because they have power, but the laws often say otherwise, and we shouldn’t let them gaslight us into thinking otherwise.

This post caused me to learn what “casuistry” means. If I understand it right, it’s a good term for the increasingly mainstream jurisprudence of “Argument by ‘One Weird Trick THEY Don’t Want You To Know About'”