Trump: President must have total immunity, even from events that cross the line

[VakAttack]

 

Combined with a Trump attorney arguing on his behalf that Trump should be immune even if he ordered the assassination of a political rival, things are going....really great.  Maybe Jamie Dimon can weigh in again about how the Democrats are the problem?

[JimmyBT]

[ionel]

9 hours ago, VakAttack said:

 

Combined with a Trump attorney arguing on his behalf that Trump should be immune even if he ordered the assassination of a political rival, things are going....really great.  Maybe Jamie Dimon can weigh in again about how the Democrats are the problem?

What about Obama ordering the assassination of a US citizen on foreign soil, should that be covered or can he now be prosecuted? 

[VakAttack]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

What about Obama ordering the assassination of a US citizen on foreign soil, should that be covered or can he now be prosecuted? 

Not sure what you're referencing here. Something related to his drone strike travesties?

[billyhoyle]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Not sure what you're referencing here. Something related to his drone strike travesties?

Obama killed a terrorist, which pissed off ISIS.  ISIS wants to sue Obama now.  

[JimmyBT]

Now start on the list of Pardons and the number of criminals each POTUS has released/given clemency to. But but but …… Trump 

Edited January 19 by JimmyBT

[Paul158]

3 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

Now start on the list of Pardons and the number of criminals each POTUS has released/given clemency to. But but but …… Trump 

That would be a really good place to start.  Do you think the DOJ is slow rolling this Hunter Biden prosecution to see if Dad  is going to get reelected or not? 

[Offthemat]

On 1/18/2024 at 11:36 AM, VakAttack said:

 

Combined with a Trump attorney arguing on his behalf that Trump should be immune even if he ordered the assassination of a political rival, things are going....really great.  Maybe Jamie Dimon can weigh in again about how the Democrats are the problem?

This is a misrepresentation of the situation of possibly the stupidest question ever raised by a judge.  We are now seeing the implications of this ruse playing out in proposed charges against nearly every ex-president whom is still alive.  

[VakAttack]

8 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

This is a misrepresentation of the situation of possibly the stupidest question ever raised by a judge.  We are now seeing the implications of this ruse playing out in proposed charges against nearly every ex-president whom is still alive.  

In what way is it a misrepresentation.

[Offthemat]

On 1/18/2024 at 11:36 AM, VakAttack said:

Combined with a Trump attorney arguing on his behalf that Trump should be immune even if he ordered the assassination of a political rival,

 

[WrestlingRasta]

Don’t agree that it was the stupidest question ever. Given what they are charged with deciding it is a very legitimate question (particularly with todays political climate) 

But he’s right, the judge did ask the question.  It’s not like the attorney brought it up as a point of argument.  He answered the judge’s question. 

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1

https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgwkj4/trump-lawyer-says-assassinating-rivals-might-not-be-a-prosecutable-crime

Are you trying to have a semantics debate about the requirement of impeachment prior to prosecution?  Or are you trying to say he didn't argue it?  As to the judge asking extreme hypothetical questions, that's every judge ever in this situation, including every single Justice on SCOTUS, both left and right.  That's part of the job to tease out argument about how the law would be applied under lawyer arguments in the most extreme cases.  The lawyer was arguing before that that Trump couldn't be prosecuted for crimes alleged to have committed in office because he hadn't been impeached, so the logical extreme example from that argument is what if he ordered someone murdered.  The judges also pointed out the de facto full immunity you're giving any president for anything they do in office because they could just resign prior to any impeachment hearing.

The idea that POTUS should be immune from any criminal prosecution would be "chilling on their ability to lead" is bull crap, political leaders all across the world have been subjected to prosecution for decades, and the idea that POTUS should get special treatment is ridiculous.  Their should be SOME immunity for things in the actual course of his job, but not for actual crimes committed

[JimmyBT]

14 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1

https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgwkj4/trump-lawyer-says-assassinating-rivals-might-not-be-a-prosecutable-crime

Are you trying to have a semantics debate about the requirement of impeachment prior to prosecution?  Or are you trying to say he didn't argue it?  As to the judge asking extreme hypothetical questions, that's every judge ever in this situation, including every single Justice on SCOTUS, both left and right.  That's part of the job to tease out argument about how the law would be applied under lawyer arguments in the most extreme cases.  The lawyer was arguing before that that Trump couldn't be prosecuted for crimes alleged to have committed in office because he hadn't been impeached, so the logical extreme example from that argument is what if he ordered someone murdered.  The judges also pointed out the de facto full immunity you're giving any president for anything they do in office because they could just resign prior to any impeachment hearing.

The idea that POTUS should be immune from any criminal prosecution would be "chilling on their ability to lead" is bull crap, political leaders all across the world have been subjected to prosecution for decades, and the idea that POTUS should get special treatment is ridiculous.  Their should be SOME immunity for things in the actual course of his job, but not for actual crimes committed

Says the guy that thinks we prosecute too many people in America. According to you unless he committed a violent crime (he didn’t)  he shouldn’t get but a slap on the wrist. 

[JimmyBT]

Presidents have pardoned many people for doing far more than anything trump has done 

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, JimmyBT said:

Says the guy that thinks we prosecute too many people in America. According to you unless he committed a violent crime (he didn’t)  he shouldn’t get but a slap on the wrist. 

....If he ordered someone murdered, that is a violent crime.

[JimmyBT]

He didn’t 

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, JimmyBT said:

He didn’t 

That's not...holy shit, it seems impossible to be this obtuse, but here you are.  His lawyers are arguing he would be immune if he did.  He endorsed that idea himself above, and has literally previously made statements about shooting people.  That's literally the whole point of this thread.  This is who he is, and he truly believes he is above the law.  He outright says it.

[JimmyBT]

He ordered nothing. 

[JimmyBT]

Except McDonald’s 

[VakAttack]

Yup.  Just deeply obtuse.  Mind-numbing.

[JimmyBT]

So as DOJ you would charge Maxine waters right? 

[JimmyBT]

Seems to me his lawyers are just trying to end this all at once instead of 91 times. 

[Offthemat]

38 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

…

Nope.  He didn’t make that argument, he should be commended for his delicate handling of an irrational question from an irrational judge.  She made the preposterous direction that it was a yes or no question.  It’s not.  More has to be known, such as:  why did he give the order?  Is the opponent wearing a suicide vest?  Pointing a gun?  Did they shoot him?  Was it a lawful order?  Why would the Seals be taking commands from the President and not their chain of command?  
 

In the extremely unlikely event that a President committed such an act, Sauer is correct, that impeachment and conviction would have to come first.  He didn’t say the president would be immune if he was first convicted in the Senate. 

Edited January 19 by Offthemat

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

Nope.  He didn’t make that argument, he should be commended for his delicate handling of an irrational question from an irrational judge.  She made the preposterous direction that it was a yes or no question.  It’s not.  More has to be known, such as:  why did he give the order?  Is the opponent wearing a suicide vest?  Pointing a gun?  Did they shoot him?  Was it a lawful order?  Why would the Seals be taking commands from the President and not their chain of command?  
 

In the extremely unlikely event that a President committed such an act, Sauer is correct, that impeachment and conviction would have to come first.  He didn’t say the president would be immune if he was first convicted in the Senate. 

He did make that argument when asked.  You not liking a question doesn't make it irrational.  You can try to drag this into a semantics debate all you want, just keep ignoring what Trump said about "crossing a line."  Nothing bad ever happens when we just ignore things.

[JimmyBT]

A certain lawyers potential client survey 

Question #1) Do you hate Donald Trump  Y or N?
- if yes proceed to question 2

- if no sorry you’re guilty as Fu&k