The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Couldn’t the president just have gunmen at the impeachment vote and kill anyone that votes to impeach? Now you have a King 🤴

[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?

He says so himself:
https://www.mediaite.com/news/totally-cool-trump-rants-for-six-solid-minutes-about-criminal-immunity-appeal-in-falsehood-riddled-late-night-attack/

[Anonymous]

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

So they have carte blanche?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Couldn’t the president just have gunmen at the impeachment vote and kill anyone that votes to impeach? Now you have a King 🤴

Yes that is what the lawyer argued today. These people do not believe in the constitution or our system of government. This lawyer needs to be disbarred.

[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?

If they were illegal actions? Of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

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

I recall a certain president perjured himself and was disbarred. Perjury is a crime.

And he negotiated a deal with the prosecutor to avoid prosecution. Guess he should have just told Starr to stuff it since he had absolute immunity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/19/politics/clinton-reaches-deal-to-avoid-indictment-and-to-give-up-law-license.html#:~:text=Clinton%20Reaches%20Deal%20to%20Avoid%20Indictment%20and%20to%20Give%20Up%20Law%20License,-Share%20full%20article&text=WASHINGTON%2C%20Jan.,with%20the%20Monica%20Lewinsky%20affair.

[Anonymous]

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

A feature of the constitution that the framers apparently forgot to write down in the actual constitution. They somehow remembered to put in the Speech and Debate clause for legislators, but forgot about the president!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Couldn’t the president just have gunmen at the impeachment vote and kill anyone that votes to impeach? Now you have a King 🤴

This seems crazy, but dictators have done worse. This would be an inevitable outcome eventually, maybe soon or centuries from now but it would be inevitable given time since it just takes 1.

[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?

"whilst"

Oh look, a sovereign subject of King Charles answering a question about us fighting a war with Britain to get away from a king!

[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.

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.

[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.

Um no, the judges aren't deciding any questions of fact. Because this is an interlocutory appeal of a pre-trial motion, the judges are required to accept the facts in the indictment as true. Stop playing lawyer. You are bad at it.

[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.

No, the constitution does not say anything like that.

[Anonymous]

Passion is a valuable political resource. President Trump has passionate supporters; Biden doesn’t. President Trump has armed supporters; Biden doesn’t.

If we had been so worried about political violence back in 1776, we would be paying taxes to London. The Patriots realized that their political passion was their most valuable resource against the British Empire.

So too does President Trump. Each supporter carrying an AR-15 outside a Black urban polling place is worth a 100 votes minimum, for the count of people who get out of line and walk home.

So why wouldn’t President Trump harvest that passion?

[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.

But some of the senators who did not vote to convict specifically said that they thought Trump had committed crimes but since the impeachment vote came up after he left office, they couldn’t vote to convict. So this is a great get out of jail free card. You can’t get convicted in an impeachment since that is only for sitting presidents. But you can’t held liable by the courts because you were once a sitting president. Heads I win, tails you lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Passion is a valuable political resource. President Trump has passionate supporters; Biden doesn’t. President Trump has armed supporters; Biden doesn’t.

If we had been so worried about political violence back in 1776, we would be paying taxes to London. The Patriots realized that their political passion was their most valuable resource against the British Empire.

So too does President Trump. Each supporter carrying an AR-15 outside a Black urban polling place is worth a 100 votes minimum, for the count of people who get out of line and walk home.

So why wouldn’t President Trump harvest that passion?

Biden himself doesn't have much passion but the institution does.

By every failed court case, every un-intimidated government official who carried out their job and refused to listen to Trump, everyone supports the country, democracy, and the institution.

Trump cannot change that. He tried and totally failed.