The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes

Awesome!

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

Many republicans seem to believe that presidential privilege only applies to Republican presidents - for democratic presidents, any disrespect is allowed ..,

[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.

Were those all Biden's children, or another political opponent?

I mean, what do you think your analogy is?

[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.

You just made up a whole lot of stuff there.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Yes, if he just retired and stopped trying to run again, they would not be pursuing this.

But he can't stop himself. So he will be be found ineligible. And in criminal trouble.

[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.

Please with the hyperbole. The purpose of this appeal is not to remove immunity in its entirety. There are all kinds of immunities at law and all kinds of exceptions to it, and all kind of things that people do that fall outside of that protection. Only Trump is arguing something whole scale and extreme that never existed before: namely, the preposterous position that while in office absolutely anything he does to anyone anywhere is immune from prosecution. That's nuts.