The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

It's called executive immunity. Do you want every president from here on out looking over their shoulders for actions they took whilst in office?

You would get to a point of a feckless presidency that can't act in many cases. Would you like Biden to be prosecuted for killing 13 children in Kabul, Afghanistan in a missile strike that Biden concurred to? The precedent you would be setting is MADNESS.

Is that the best example you can come up with of an unlawful act that is necessary for the president to be able to commit in order to be president? Because it seems like a pretty wide gulf between a narrow exception for foreign policy and blanket immunity.

Oh, and if Trump killed someone overseas, not in furtherance of foreign policy but in furtherance of his business interests? I'd want him prosecuted.

There's no gulf there at all. Because you have a DOJ stocked with personnel chosen by the president. They are the decision makers. All you have to be is a former president in an opposition party.

Is this rocket science for you?

I have no doubt that if we get another Republican president his DOJ will prosecute his Democratic predecessors. Because that's how Republicans roll.

"his DOJ"?????

You're drinkin the Kool-Aid!!

No prior Republican president has used "his DOJ" to prosecute political rivals, and no Democratic president has done so either.

Trump was absolutely doing this. Read Geoffrey Herman’s book.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Geoffrey BERMAN, thanks autocorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

It's called executive immunity. Do you want every president from here on out looking over their shoulders for actions they took whilst in office?

You would get to a point of a feckless presidency that can't act in many cases. Would you like Biden to be prosecuted for killing 13 children in Kabul, Afghanistan in a missile strike that Biden concurred to? The precedent you would be setting is MADNESS.

Is that the best example you can come up with of an unlawful act that is necessary for the president to be able to commit in order to be president? Because it seems like a pretty wide gulf between a narrow exception for foreign policy and blanket immunity.

Oh, and if Trump killed someone overseas, not in furtherance of foreign policy but in furtherance of his business interests? I'd want him prosecuted.

There's no gulf there at all. Because you have a DOJ stocked with personnel chosen by the president. They are the decision makers. All you have to be is a former president in an opposition party.

Is this rocket science for you?

I have no doubt that if we get another Republican president his DOJ will prosecute his Democratic predecessors. Because that's how Republicans roll.

"his DOJ"?????

You're drinkin the Kool-Aid!!

No prior Republican president has used "his DOJ" to prosecute political rivals, and no Democratic president has done so either.

Of course Merrick Garland IS and he's doing it at the bidding of Joe Biden.

Who has total immunity to do it. So it's all cool.

Good point. If you follow the "logic" of Trump's argument that the impeachment clause creates immunity for any act that doesn't result in an impeachment and conviction, then the immunity must also extend to every Senate confirmed position in the executive branch as well as to every judge. So not only is the president above the law, but so are thousands of other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

It's called executive immunity. Do you want every president from here on out looking over their shoulders for actions they took whilst in office?

You would get to a point of a feckless presidency that can't act in many cases. Would you like Biden to be prosecuted for killing 13 children in Kabul, Afghanistan in a missile strike that Biden concurred to? The precedent you would be setting is MADNESS.

Is that the best example you can come up with of an unlawful act that is necessary for the president to be able to commit in order to be president? Because it seems like a pretty wide gulf between a narrow exception for foreign policy and blanket immunity.

Oh, and if Trump killed someone overseas, not in furtherance of foreign policy but in furtherance of his business interests? I'd want him prosecuted.

There's no gulf there at all. Because you have a DOJ stocked with personnel chosen by the president. They are the decision makers. All you have to be is a former president in an opposition party.

Is this rocket science for you?

I have no doubt that if we get another Republican president his DOJ will prosecute his Democratic predecessors. Because that's how Republicans roll.

"his DOJ"?????

You're drinkin the Kool-Aid!!

No prior Republican president has used "his DOJ" to prosecute political rivals, and no Democratic president has done so either.

Of course Merrick Garland IS and he's doing it at the bidding of Joe Biden.

Who has total immunity to do it. So it's all cool.

Good point. If you follow the "logic" of Trump's argument that the impeachment clause creates immunity for any act that doesn't result in an impeachment and conviction, then the immunity must also extend to every Senate confirmed position in the executive branch as well as to every judge. So not only is the president above the law, but so are thousands of other people.

The law is only for the little people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Where in the Constitution does it say this?

It doesn’t say it but it offers a specifically remedy to remove for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. And then the subsequent case law has ultimate concluded that qualified immunity is insufficient. Absolutely immunity for decisions related to doing the job is what the Supreme Court found.

You are incorrectly reading into that clause that this is the only process and remedy for a President who commits a crime. That is a process for removing him from office. At issue here are separate proceeding seeking different relief: 1) criminal; 2) some civil matters; and 3) is whether he is eligible to run again.

This is ALL about number 3. This is all a blatant attempt to keep him off the ballot. If he weren’t running again, I don’t think this would be happening at all.

Of course it would be happening. Those of us who support the rule of law want Trump to be held accountable for his crimes whether or not he's running again. You have the cart before the horse - he's running again so that he can a) declare all the prosecutions against him political witch hunts and b) put a stop to the federal cases should he become president again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

It's called executive immunity. Do you want every president from here on out looking over their shoulders for actions they took whilst in office?

You would get to a point of a feckless presidency that can't act in many cases. Would you like Biden to be prosecuted for killing 13 children in Kabul, Afghanistan in a missile strike that Biden concurred to? The precedent you would be setting is MADNESS.

Is that the best example you can come up with of an unlawful act that is necessary for the president to be able to commit in order to be president? Because it seems like a pretty wide gulf between a narrow exception for foreign policy and blanket immunity.

Oh, and if Trump killed someone overseas, not in furtherance of foreign policy but in furtherance of his business interests? I'd want him prosecuted.

There's no gulf there at all. Because you have a DOJ stocked with personnel chosen by the president. They are the decision makers. All you have to be is a former president in an opposition party.

Is this rocket science for you?

I have no doubt that if we get another Republican president his DOJ will prosecute his Democratic predecessors. Because that's how Republicans roll.

Yes. Which is why it's so important to get this right.

Trump is such a bizarre former president. This has not been an issue with the other presidents. But he's essentially claiming immunity from everything. Today, he argued that he has the right to use Seal Team 6 to kill domestic political opponents.

This country would fall into civil war so quickly if any of his arguments are upheld.

[Anonymous]

Watch and read it for yourself:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?532581-1/district-columbia-circuit-court-oral-arguments-president-trumps-immunity-claims&live=

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

It's called executive immunity. Do you want every president from here on out looking over their shoulders for actions they took whilst in office?

You would get to a point of a feckless presidency that can't act in many cases. Would you like Biden to be prosecuted for killing 13 children in Kabul, Afghanistan in a missile strike that Biden concurred to? The precedent you would be setting is MADNESS.

Is that the best example you can come up with of an unlawful act that is necessary for the president to be able to commit in order to be president? Because it seems like a pretty wide gulf between a narrow exception for foreign policy and blanket immunity.

Oh, and if Trump killed someone overseas, not in furtherance of foreign policy but in furtherance of his business interests? I'd want him prosecuted.

There's no gulf there at all. Because you have a DOJ stocked with personnel chosen by the president. They are the decision makers. All you have to be is a former president in an opposition party.

Is this rocket science for you?

I have no doubt that if we get another Republican president his DOJ will prosecute his Democratic predecessors. Because that's how Republicans roll.

Yes. Which is why it's so important to get this right.

Trump is such a bizarre former president. This has not been an issue with the other presidents. But he's essentially claiming immunity from everything. Today, he argued that he has the right to use Seal Team 6 to kill domestic political opponents.

This country would fall into civil war so quickly if any of his arguments are upheld.

No other president did anything approaching the things Trump has been charged with.

[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.

He has immunity for things that are part of the job.

The president has no role in any of the 50+ "state" elections and shouldn't be exempt from fomenting an insurrection. The Senate didn't "convict" him because he was already out of office and was thus subject to DOJ investigation and they said as much in February 2021.

There is zero chance the court sides with Trump on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Election interference from foreign players is Executive responsibility.

Finding "fraud" in the many state elections, is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Huh? Yes, a president pretty much has immunity for carrying out his office. Including shenanigans.

Many things are within the purview of the office. Listening in on the opponent, nope. Pressuring officials to change votes, no. Using force (mob) to delay and alter an election, nope. Those things are not the president's job.

Even if I agree that trump did all of those things, the remedy is impeachment. That’s it.

Except the GOP refused to vote for "conviction" suggesting Trump would be subject to DOJ investigation and prosecution because he was already out of office.

[Anonymous]

So if it comes out after he left office that the president was selling pardons, there is no remedy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically Biden, as part of his duties to keep America safe, can order Trump to be locked up as a menace to our democracy, until after the election. And then call on the National Guard to put down the riots of MAGA supporter. And call martial law in the land to suppress whatever dissent there is among the GOP. All in the name of national security. And if he has enough toadies in Congress to reject impeachment he gets away with it. And thus he gets away with it even after he is no longer in office because he has immunity.

This is in essence what the Trump team is arguing.

As I posted before, Joe better get busy getting ready if the court rules in favor of Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My 13:year old saw the thread title and said, Haven't these people heard of the rule of law? We learned about it in school. No, the president isn't above the law. Of course not.

Did you explain to your 13 year old that the constitution specified impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and that President Trump was impeached and not convicted?

DP and then her 13 year might reply but what if a president resigns before impeachment and conviction take place, that means he's above the law if he commits High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Maybe. But that isn’t what happened. Trump WAS impeached and was found not guilty. That is the situation.

He wasn't found "not guilty" - a majority of senators voted to disbar Trump from running again, but not the 60 needed to prevent it outright. More than 10 said they would not vote against Trump because he was out of office, so voting for removal was unnecessary and further, that the DOJ would have jursidiction.

So now we have the DOJ arguing in court and team trump citing the lack of removal by the Senate as the get out of jail free card...IOW playing both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

It's called executive immunity. Do you want every president from here on out looking over their shoulders for actions they took whilst in office?

You would get to a point of a feckless presidency that can't act in many cases. Would you like Biden to be prosecuted for killing 13 children in Kabul, Afghanistan in a missile strike that Biden concurred to? The precedent you would be setting is MADNESS.

No one would impeach a president because a miltary strike in another land did that. A president organizing an American coup is not part of his job.