The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Trump knows that Joe would never do anything like that. But it really doesn't matter because Trump also knows he won't win this appeal. He's just trying to delay, delay, delay until he's president again and actually does have immunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is what these judges have to decide. Does a president have immunity from prosecution for doing acts that are in support of his role or is there a limit. It’s going to be a fact question and he was not convicted by the senate. The constitution allows the senate to remove him and they chose not to. So can a court find his immunity should be striped for an action he says was part of his job and the senate did not disagree? I think the answer will be that ultimately he has immunity. He has to or he can’t do his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes because the remedy is impeachment. That is what the constitution says. Court should dismiss the case based on a lack of jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

But if Biden is president he can do that, if presidents have immunity, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

But if Biden is president he can do that, if presidents have immunity, right?

Biden would have immunity if he used DOJ/ FBI to investigate his opponent. But if he deployed seals to murder him the immunity would apply because there is nothing the role of the president that allows him to murder his opponents.

[Anonymous]

Pp ..,immunity would NOT apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes because the remedy is impeachment. That is what the constitution says. Court should dismiss the case based on a lack of jurisdiction.

That’s not what Trump’s attorney said today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That is what these judges have to decide. Does a president have immunity from prosecution for doing acts that are in support of his role or is there a limit. It’s going to be a fact question and he was not convicted by the senate. The constitution allows the senate to remove him and they chose not to. So can a court find his immunity should be striped for an action he says was part of his job and the senate did not disagree? I think the answer will be that ultimately he has immunity. He has to or he can’t do his job.

Sending a mob to the Capitol was not Trump's job. His job was actually sending the National Guard to the Capitol to clear the mob out of there (something he refused to do because he was too busy watching TV for three hours).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes because the remedy is impeachment. That is what the constitution says. Court should dismiss the case based on a lack of jurisdiction.

What if a president resigns before impeachment proceedings can happen - does that mean he gets away with anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes because the remedy is impeachment. That is what the constitution says. Court should dismiss the case based on a lack of jurisdiction.

What if a president resigns before impeachment proceedings can happen - does that mean he gets away with anything?

This happened once. He was pardoned by his predecessor (something that would not have been necessary if he truly had immunity).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

But if Biden is president he can do that, if presidents have immunity, right?

Biden would have immunity if he used DOJ/ FBI to investigate his opponent. But if he deployed seals to murder him the immunity would apply because there is nothing the role of the president that allows him to murder his opponents.

Re: the first -- someone needs to tell the Trump campaign and MAGA folk this. Because it means they have no case that Biden is illegally going after Trump.

[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.

What other presidents in recent memory besides Richard Nixon and Trump have done prosecutable things while in office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

But if Biden is president he can do that, if presidents have immunity, right?

Biden would have immunity if he used DOJ/ FBI to investigate his opponent. But if he deployed seals to murder him the immunity would apply because there is nothing the role of the president that allows him to murder his opponents.

Re: the first -- someone needs to tell the Trump campaign and MAGA folk this. Because it means they have no case that Biden is illegally going after Trump.

They will call it election interference. But oversight of elections via DOJ and other branches of government does fall within the role of the Executive. And so while Team Trump may be correct, and others on Team Biden could end up in the crapper for violating laws, Biden himself is safe. Just like Trump is safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes because the remedy is impeachment. That is what the constitution says. Court should dismiss the case based on a lack of jurisdiction.

What if a president resigns before impeachment proceedings can happen - does that mean he gets away with anything?

Maybe. But the only authority Congress has in impeachment is removal from office so the result is the same.

[Anonymous]

Guys. This is a feature of the constitution. Not a bug. Prosecuting current and former presidents is not a good thing.