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?

And who makes that determination? Is it something the president just asserts and the court has to dismiss? Or is it a defense that the president raises at trial?

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?

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?

Liar.
That's exactly what Sauer said.
I listened. It's on tape, unless you're calling the court recording an AI fake!?!?

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How often is perjury prosecuted? And perjury relating to a personal fling, not national security or matters of grave national importance?

Perjury that wasn't material to the question at hand.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How often is perjury prosecuted? And perjury relating to a personal fling, not national security or matters of grave national importance?

So now you are equivocating. Perjury is a crime and people do go to jail.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a former Republican, that was a mortifying time and should never have happened. Disgraceful conduct by the Republicans.

.

The point is that PP was suggesting only Trump and Nixon would be exposed by this. No. They wouldn’t. And if we say presidents can be tried as criminals then people will look for stuff to bring people down. Think of what we will find and to what end. Our presidents are elected and can only be removed by congress. If Trump had beat Melanie, he would not have immunity for that because that is not within the job description. He would not be immune from prosecution for besting his wife and if found guilty would have to serve time. But a court could not remove him from office. He could be president from jail. Meanwhile, the congress could remove him but that is it. But he has immunity for activities that are connected to doing his job. The remedy for bad acts while doing his job in office is impeachment.

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.

How often is perjury prosecuted? And perjury relating to a personal fling, not national security or matters of grave national importance?

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?

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.

As a former Republican, that was a mortifying time and should never have happened. Disgraceful conduct by the Republicans.

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.

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.

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?

Seriously want to go there? I mean really?

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.