Foolish People on the Left Keep Asking Ridiculous Hypotheticals About Presidential Immunity

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because you are very stupid.

No that's not it cry baby.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's like being infallible, but only sometimes.

Trumpers say the dumbest things

 

[Billiejeens]

It's like being infallible, but only sometimes.

Trumpers say the dumbest things

It's not even higher level thinking.

 

[Billiejeens]

No that's not it cry baby.

It is that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is that.

Nobody wants to watch you jerk off.

Moving on...

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are an attention whore clown.

says billieclown. It will be 7-2 limited verdict. But he will not immunity.,

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Literally no one has insisted that.

Trump's lawyer suggested in federal court that a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and — unless he was impeached and convicted by Congress — be immune from criminal prosecution.

 

[Billiejeens]

Trump's lawyer suggested in federal court that a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and — unless he was impeached and convicted by Congress — be immune from criminal prosecution.

You are misrepresenting the scenario.

Shock

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You are misrepresenting the scenario.

Shock

Nope.

You just can't handle the facts, the truth.

 

[Billiejeens]

Limited immunity versus absolute immunity.

Send a soldier to a war zone - he can kill enemy combats, in theater, pursuit to the Geneva convention, with absolute immunity.

Bring the soldier home to the USA - he kills a random person, posing no threat - no immunity.

So - the absolute immunity is real but is limited in scope.

 

[Billiejeens]

Nope.

You just can't handle the facts, the truth.

I can

 

[Billiejeens]

• "Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?" Judge Florence Pan asked.
• "He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution," Sauer responded.

The answer is perfection.
The USA does not indict sitting Presidents.
So - in the scenario - the President would immediately be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate.
(of course if it is a Democrat President - they protect him)
Then he would/could be indicted.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nope.

You just can't handle the facts, the truth.

I can

 

[Billiejeens]

Side bar -

“How about President Obama’s drone strikes?” Kavanaugh asked Michael Dreeben.

Dreeben defended Obama’s drone strikes that killed weddinggoers and innocent civilians.

“So the office of legal counsel looked at this very carefully and determined number one that the federal murder statute does apply to the Executive Branch, but the president wasn’t personally carrying out the strike, but the aiding and abetting laws are broad and determined that a public authority exception is built into statutes and that applied particularly to the murder statute that talks about unlawful killing did not apply to the drone strike,” Dreeben said.

 

[Billiejeens]

Trump's lawyer suggested in federal court that a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and — unless he was impeached and convicted by Congress — be immune from criminal prosecution.

• "Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?" Judge Florence Pan asked.
• "He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution," Sauer responded.

The answer is perfection.
The USA does not indict sitting Presidents.
So - in the scenario - the President would immediately be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate.
(of course, if it is a Democrat President - they protect him)
Then he would/could be indicted.

Sawry Amateur -
You are the very definition of someone who misrepresents -

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

• "Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?" Judge Florence Pan asked.
• "He would have to be and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution," Sauer responded.

The answer is perfection.
The USA does not indict sitting Presidents.
So - in the scenario - the President would immediately be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate.
(of course, if it is a Democrat President - they protect him)
Then he would/could be indicted.

Sawry Amateur -
You are the very definition of someone who misrepresents -

No criminal prosecution unless a president is impeached and convicted. So a political rule trumps(lol) the rule of law?

If a President's party controls the Senate and refuses to convict, the a President is as powerful as a King. Maybe more so.

 

[Billiejeens]

No criminal prosecution unless a president is impeached and convicted. So a political rule trumps(lol) the rule of law?

If a President's party controls the Senate and refuses to convict, the a President is as powerful as a King. Maybe more so.

Sounds as if your problem is with the system.

That doesn't mitigate your misrepresentation of the facts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sounds as if your problem is with the system.

That doesn't mitigate your misrepresentation of the facts.

That is not the system we have now. And it is Trump and MAGA that have yuge problems with the system

You are such a laughable dupe and hypocrite.

 

[Billiejeens]

That is not the system we have now. And it is Trump and MAGA that have yuge problems with the system

You are such a laughable dupe and hypocrite.

It is the system, Mr. ignorance.

Since (at least) 1973 the DOJ has said that they do not indict sitting presidents.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is the system, Mr. ignorance.

Since (at least) 1973 the DOJ has said that they do not indict sitting presidents.

You just mixed things up again.

sorry don't waste my time