The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Trump’s lawyers argued in court today that a President could order Seal Team 6 to murder a political opponent and he would be immune from criminal prosecution.

What type of argument is this? Didn’t we fight a war with Britain to get away from a king?

[Anonymous]

Relax -- it only applies to Trump. Not any other president. And I'm sure he has no plans to ACTUALLY murder anyone....

[Anonymous]

That is not what his counsel said.

And, it was a ridiculous question.
Why use Seal Team 6 when you can use the DOJ and FBI like Biden is doing?

[jsteele]

I'm no Trump defender, but that was not exactly the argument. The lawyer contended that in such a blatant case of lawlessness, the House would immediately impeach the president and the Senate would convict. At that point, the President would be eligible for prosecution.

The problem with this theory is that today's Congress would be unlikely to impeach Trump for anything, including ordering Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent.

The risk for Trump, of course, is that Biden will order Seal Team Six to murder him. But, I suspect that the Democrats in the Senate will not act with the same cultish behavior of House Republicans.

[Anonymous]

It does matter that Trump was not convicted by the Senate. But if we now say a president can be tried criminally once they have left office for actions taken while in office, why not have that apply to all prior presidents. That would be interesting to see.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It does matter that Trump was not convicted by the Senate. But if we now say a president can be tried criminally once they have left office for actions taken while in office, why not have that apply to all prior presidents. That would be interesting to see.

This is not a new idea. If you remember, Mitch McConnell's excuse for not voting for impeachment was because Trump could be charged in court after leaving the presidency. McConnell will no longer comment on that position, but he clearly once contended that presidents could be charged after leaving office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It does matter that Trump was not convicted by the Senate. But if we now say a president can be tried criminally once they have left office for actions taken while in office, why not have that apply to all prior presidents. That would be interesting to see.

Yes, our former presidents are facing an average of over two indictments each.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I'm no Trump defender, but that was not exactly the argument. The lawyer contended that in such a blatant case of lawlessness, the House would immediately impeach the president and the Senate would convict. At that point, the President would be eligible for prosecution.

The problem with this theory is that today's Congress would be unlikely to impeach Trump for anything, including ordering Seal Team Six to kill a political opponent.

The risk for Trump, of course, is that Biden will order Seal Team Six to murder him. But, I suspect that the Democrats in the Senate will not act with the same cultish behavior of House Republicans.

I can remember on January 5th pundits were saying that there's no way Trump was going to go through with sending his mob to Congress, if he did he'd be impeached and convicted before the sun set.

More innocent times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It does matter that Trump was not convicted by the Senate. But if we now say a president can be tried criminally once they have left office for actions taken while in office, why not have that apply to all prior presidents. That would be interesting to see.

Many of the Republican senators that voted against conviction claimed that they didn’t believe impeachment was the proper place to deal with Trump’s conduct. They claimed that impeachment was to remove a sitting president and since Trump was no longer president, they couldn’t convict.

https://www.justsecurity.org/74725/in-their-own-words-the-43-republicans-explanations-of-their-votes-not-to-convict-trump-in-impeachment-trial/

If the senate couldn’t convict because he wasn’t president when brought up for trial, and the judicial system can’t do anything because the senate has to convict first, he truly is above the law.

[Anonymous]

There would be no justice if a president killed off his foes, then resigned before the House figured it out. That’s not how our justice system works.

[Anonymous]

As I posted in the other thread, if the theory holds, then Joe can take swift action and it can be against any foes in the House, Senate, SCOTUS, you name it because he would be above the law, right?

[Anonymous]

That argument is a bit of a red herring. Killing a political foe with a seal team would violate a ton of laws and in no way could it be considered within the job of a president. Trump’s argument is that it is within his role as president to ensure that the election was fair blah blah. It’s totally true but whether what he did actually was for that purpose etc is a fact question. But on its face it’s not a ridiculous position to say that a president cannot be charged criminally for doing the things he is required to do under his oath of office. The oath could never be stretched to justify ordering murder or using the military agains US citizens on US solid so I think the judge’s question was for clickbait but not really an apt analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That argument is a bit of a red herring. Killing a political foe with a seal team would violate a ton of laws and in no way could it be considered within the job of a president. Trump’s argument is that it is within his role as president to ensure that the election was fair blah blah. It’s totally true but whether what he did actually was for that purpose etc is a fact question. But on its face it’s not a ridiculous position to say that a president cannot be charged criminally for doing the things he is required to do under his oath of office. The oath could never be stretched to justify ordering murder or using the military agains US citizens on US solid so I think the judge’s question was for clickbait but not really an apt analogy.

So how does that question of fact get settled? Trump is claiming the charges should be dismissed before a trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That argument is a bit of a red herring. Killing a political foe with a seal team would violate a ton of laws and in no way could it be considered within the job of a president. Trump’s argument is that it is within his role as president to ensure that the election was fair blah blah. It’s totally true but whether what he did actually was for that purpose etc is a fact question. But on its face it’s not a ridiculous position to say that a president cannot be charged criminally for doing the things he is required to do under his oath of office. The oath could never be stretched to justify ordering murder or using the military agains US citizens on US solid so I think the judge’s question was for clickbait but not really an apt analogy.

Did you listen to the arguments? That’s not what was said. Trump’s attorney was arguing it’s a violation of the separation of powers for his conduct to be reviewed by a court.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does matter that Trump was not convicted by the Senate. But if we now say a president can be tried criminally once they have left office for actions taken while in office, why not have that apply to all prior presidents. That would be interesting to see.

This is not a new idea. If you remember, Mitch McConnell's excuse for not voting for impeachment was because Trump could be charged in court after leaving the presidency. McConnell will no longer comment on that position, but he clearly once contended that presidents could be charged after leaving office.

+1 And IIRC Trump’s own lawyers in the impeachment proceeding argued that it was no longer appropriate since he wasn’t president anymore and that prosecutors could take a look now.