The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

If Republicans in the Senate had the courage to uphold their oaths and do their jobs -- not delay the impeachment vote until after Trump left office, and convict him -- we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Anonymous]

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?

[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.

No, the constitution does not say anything like that.

Yes, it does.

[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.

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.

Yes, it does.

You must have a secret copy then.

[Anonymous]

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?

The DOJ? No it's not. You sound like a nutter now.

[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.

Nixon received a pardon after he resigned. If he could not have been charged there would have been no reason for a pardon.

Which past presidents do you think should be subject to criminal charges?

[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.

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.

Yes, it does.

You think? If the courts concluded there was no prosecutorial remedy or judicial jurisdiction over such a crime there would literally be no basis on which to charge him or her. And Trump is all for using the military against citizens.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

Yes, it does.

Prove it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So a president can resign in order to get away with illegal activities?

If those “illegal” activities relate to his job, yes and he will be immune. If not related to the job, then no. He could be prosecuted.

So where is the line between related and unrelated?

Specifically, can conduct that is job-related also be unlawful, or does it have to be lawful? Under what circumstances can unlawful conduct be considered job-related?

I think this is why the court will end up concluding that if the activities touch the presidents duties, then the court does not have jurisdiction. Impeachment is the constitutional remedy. That lets them avoid the sticky factually question that frankly, they cannot resolve anyway.

Stop repeating this freakin lie!! Maggot. Go away.

There's no factual question. The allegations in the indictment must be taken as true in an interlocutory appeal of a motion to dismiss.

[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.

"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.

[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.

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

[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 tried to.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/us/politic...nton-foundation.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/nyregion/g...rman-trump-book.html

See also the Durham investigation.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

What is Merrick Garland doing at Biden's behest?