The Trump legal arguments involving Presidential immunity

[SavannahMann]

Your “question” highlights your fundamental misunderstanding of the issues involved.

The standard to indict any person for a felony remains the same “probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and probable cause to believe that the person being looked into for that ‘crime,’ is the person criminally responsible for that ‘crime.’”

The point of Presidential Immunity focuses its attention to a different matter: whether the “actions” which were allegedly criminal were made under the President’s authority as President for a legitimate purpose demanded by his duties as President.

If murder is the intentional taking of a human life, then the action of pointing a gun at another person and pulling the trigger in order to end that other person’s life would normally qualify as “murder.” However, if that other person was at that time trying very hard to kill you, then shooting him to death before he can accomplish his goal isn’t murder. Why not? Because not it “justified.” It legally means that what would otherwise be a murder isn’t a crime at all because the action was justified by necessity.

Interestingly, in most cases, to defend against a murder charge by claiming “justification” and or ”self defense” the accused actually has to admit essentially all of the required culpable mental state and criminal act elements of the crime.
But, if the jury agrees, it isn’t a crime at all.

Similarly, if a special persecutor wants to charge a former President with criminal behavior, it may be that the persecutor will have to disprove that the former President’s actions weren’t undertaken for the purposes of doing his duties as President.

Trump’s attorneys just claimed that the President can assassinate A political rival and not be prosecuted unless he is impeached and removed from office.

US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, Trump's lawyer argues | Semafor

Trump's lawyer presented a sweeping interpretation of presidential immunity as he argued that the former president is immune from prosecution for the charges that he tried to overturn the 2020 election.

www.semafor.com

If this argument carries the court, then Biden should exercise this new found right and order the death of Trump. Then we just have to insure 34 senators don’t vote to remove him from office. And it is perfectly legal. Right?

 

[BackAgain]

Trump’s attorneys just claimed that the President can assassinate A political rival and not be prosecuted unless he is impeached and removed from office.

US president could have a rival assassinated and not be criminally prosecuted, Trump's lawyer argues | Semafor

Trump's lawyer presented a sweeping interpretation of presidential immunity as he argued that the former president is immune from prosecution for the charges that he tried to overturn the 2020 election.

www.semafor.com

If this argument carries the court, then Biden should exercise this new found right and order the death of Trump. Then we just have to insure 34 senators don’t vote to remove him from office. And it is perfectly legal. Right?

There is more than one facet to the immunity argument.

One, as even the judges should already grasp, is that the action must be within the outer boundaries of the President’s authority. Assassination of a political rival doesn’t qualify. There would be no doubt unity.

Another facet of the immunity argument involves what the Constitution says. Where a president acts in a way that Congress finds improper, the House can impeach. The Senate then does the trial. The Constitution is what says that the President’s can then be tried in a criminal court setting “upon conviction.” The implicarionnofnrhatbprovisionnis that where there has been no conviction, the President cannot be tried for a crime. It’s a nuanced claim but it derives from the very words of the Constitution itself.

You really should read the Trump brief.

 

[SavannahMann]

There is more than one facet to the immunity argument.

One, as even the judges should already grasp, is that the action must be within the outer boundaries of the President’s authority. Assassination of a political rival doesn’t qualify. There would be no doubt unity.

Another facet of the immunity argument involves what the Constitution says. Where a president acts in a way that Congress finds improper, the House can impeach. The Senate then does the trial. The Constitution is what says that the President’s can then be tried in a criminal court setting “upon conviction.” The implicarionnofnrhatbprovisionnis that where there has been no conviction, the President cannot be tried for a crime. It’s a nuanced claim but it derives from the very words of the Constitution itself.

You really should read the Trump brief.

I did read it. It was an insult to American History and the very principles that this nation was founded upon.

 

[BackAgain]

I did read it. It was an insult to American History and the very principles that this nation was founded upon.

No. It sure wasn’t.

And you don’t read it. Your prior posts confirm that.

 

[SavannahMann]

No. It sure wasn’t.

And you don’t read it. Your prior posts confirm that.

Curious. As many of the same questions I asked when I read it were asked by the Judges at the hearing today. I guess they didn’t read it either.

 

[BackAgain]

Curious. As many of the same questions I asked when I read it were asked by the Judges at the hearing today. I guess they didn’t read it either.

Not surprising. You I expect to be ignorant and untrained.

Judges ought to be expected to be more familiar with the ins and outs of what is being claimed. That one lawyer’s answer however was a brain fart. What he OUGHT to have replied was:

“No, judge. Part one addresses your hypothetical. Part one requires that the conduct in question be withdrawn n the outer boundaries of the President’s official duties. Having Seal Team Six commit an assassination of a political rival wouldn’t qualify.

Now judge, part two involves the impeachment clause. If the President abused his office to have an opponent murdered, you can bet that only would he be impeached but also convicted. In that event, he could also then be tried for the murder.”

 

[SavannahMann]

Not surprising. You I expect to be ignorant and untrained.

Judges ought to be expected to be more familiar with the ins and outs of what is being claimed. That one lawyer’s answer however was a brain fart. What he OUGHT to have replied was:

“No, judge. Part one addresses your hypothetical. Part one requires that the conduct in question be withdrawn n the outer boundaries of the President’s official duties. Having Seal Team Six commit an assassination of a political rival wouldn’t qualify.

Now judge, part two involves the impeachment clause. If the President abused his office to have an opponent murdered, you can bet that only would he be impeached but also convicted. In that event, he could also then be tried for the murder.”

But that presupposes that the political theater would remove him from office. As I said. As long as 34 Senators said no, the President would be totally immune to prosecution after leaving office. That is not the American ideal. That means we have a King, not a President.

You keep pretending that this is a deep argument that nobody but the Trump fanboys is able to get. It is so nuanced. But you won’t address the Nixon pardon. You don’t acknowledge the Clinton Plea Bargain. You ignore the Rockefeller plea bargain.

But let’s be honest. Up until Trump everyone believed a President could face charges for crimes committed while in Office. That is why so many are indicted along with Trump. The argument that they were following orders doesn’t fly. It didn’t fly at the Nuremberg trials. It didn’t fly ever. Hell when I was in the Army, where following orders is mandatory. Where severe punishment can result in failure to obey orders. We were taught that we did not follow an illegal order. Ever.

That reality exists today. The idiots who were following the instructions of the CIA at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted. Why? The CIA agent doesn’t have the legal authority to issue orders to the US Army.

Everyone in the position to know told Trump he had lost the election. So claims of his duty as President don’t fly.

But the good news is if your argument does actually carry the day in Court. Then Biden will certainly have Trump executed and laughingly point at the Trump decision as his justification.

Wanna bet that 34 Democrats won’t protect him in the Senate? Or perhaps Harris would pardon him?

 

[BackAgain]

But that presupposes that the political theater would remove him from office. As I said. As long as 34 Senators said no, the President would be totally immune to prosecution after leaving office. That is not the American ideal. That means we have a King, not a President.

You keep pretending that this is a deep argument that nobody but the Trump fanboys is able to get. It is so nuanced. But you won’t address the Nixon pardon. You don’t acknowledge the Clinton Plea Bargain. You ignore the Rockefeller plea bargain.

But let’s be honest. Up until Trump everyone believed a President could face charges for crimes committed while in Office. That is why so many are indicted along with Trump. The argument that they were following orders doesn’t fly. It didn’t fly at the Nuremberg trials. It didn’t fly ever. Hell when I was in the Army, where following orders is mandatory. Where severe punishment can result in failure to obey orders. We were taught that we did not follow an illegal order. Ever.

That reality exists today. The idiots who were following the instructions of the CIA at Abu Ghraib were prosecuted. Why? The CIA agent doesn’t have the legal authority to issue orders to the US Army.

Everyone in the position to know told Trump he had lost the election. So claims of his duty as President don’t fly.

But the good news is if your argument does actually carry the day in Court. Then Biden will certainly have Trump executed and laughingly point at the Trump decision as his justification.

Wanna bet that 34 Democrats won’t protect him in the Senate? Or perhaps Harris would pardon him?

You still don’t get a single word of any of this.

Did you ever graduate from kindergarten?

 

[berg80]

When Mitch McTreason spoke on the floor of the Senate to justify his acquittal of the Orange Menace he argued the Senate could not convict Don because he was already out of office. While pointing to the criminal justice system as the legitimate remaining way to seek accountability.



It was the same argument his attorneys made during the trial. One saying, "after he is out of office you go and arrest him.” It was a line of defense 7 Repub senators found unpersuasive, going on the record by voting to convict. A previously unheard of number from the party of the prez being impeached. A number that would have been higher, according to Mitt Romney, if more Repubs had voted their conscience and not been fearful of retribution from Trump and his mob.

Fast forward to this week. Now RICO Don's attorneys are making what amounts to the opposite argument. That he is immune from prosecution for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. One of his lawyers argued that he should not face criminal charges because the Senate had failed to convict him of similar offenses at an impeachment trial three years ago.

Circular logic to be sure. Or in legal terms what's called judicial estoppal.

A common law doctrine that prevents a party from taking a position that is contrary to a position the party took in an earlier legal proceeding. The purpose of judicial estoppel is to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing a party from gaining an unfair advantage or imposing an unfair detriment on the opposing party in a later proceeding. A court will typically invoke judicial estoppel where the earlier position was accepted by the court and the later position is clearly contradictory. Judicial estoppel may be raised as an affirmative defense.

Glossary | Practical Law

content.next.westlaw.com

In laymen's terms it's called bullshit.

 

[Oddball]

 

[rightwinger]

Mitch keeps moving the Goalpost

When he was leader of the Senate, he said he couldn’t hold a Senate vote because it was too close to the end of his term, but advised Democrats that they could do it once they were In control

Once Democrats held a vote on Impeachment, Mitch voted against it with fellow Republicans because Trump was no longer President. But Mitch made it clear, The courts can still hold Trump liable for his actions.

Now, Republicans are arguing you can’t prosecute because he wasn’t impeached

 

[DGS49]

Are you really this stupid?

The exclusive remedy for misconduct by a sitting President is impeachment. The maximum punishment that can be imposed by an impeachment-conviction is removal from office. If he is out of office, the impeachment is moot.

The remedy for criminal conduct when the President is out of office is through the cognizant criminal justice system (Federal, State, or local).

But you CANNOT use the latter remedy for conduct that occurred while the President was in office.

A legitimate question remains, to wit, Was the President's personal campaign to challenge the election results a part of his official duties as President? One could argue either way. But there is no contradiction in stating that you cannot convict a President in criminal court for his actions as President. The exclusive way of going after a sitting President is through impeachment, which is no longer possible.

Unless you are Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Lesh]

Are you really this stupid?

The exclusive remedy for misconduct by a sitting President is impeachment. The maximum punishment that can be imposed by an impeachment-conviction is removal from office. If he is out of office, the impeachment is moot.

The remedy for criminal conduct when the President is out of office is through the cognizant criminal justice system (Federal, State, or local).

But you CANNOT use the latter remedy for conduct that occurred while the President was in office.

A legitimate question remains, to wit, Was the President's personal campaign to challenge the election results a part of his official duties as President? One could argue either way. But there is no contradiction in stating that you cannot convict a President in criminal court for his actions as President. The exclusive way of going after a sitting President is through impeachment, which is no longer possible.

Unless you are Nancy Pelosi.

Nope. Latter conduct is still punishable. Nothing on the Constitution says otherwise.

While in office the remedy is to impeach (a near possibility in this partisan landscape) and to prosecute as a criminal matter once
He has been removed from office.

Trump is trying to claim that without conviction in the a senate he can never be prosecuted.

Absurd

 

[surada]

GOP senators slap down Trump on Jan. 6 ‘hostages’

Republican senators are slapping down President Trump’s claim that people convicted of Jan. 6-related crimes are “hostages” who should be pardoned or set free by President Biden or a future preside…

thehill.com

 

[berg80]

ut you CANNOT use the latter remedy for conduct that occurred while the President was in office.

Well, that's the specious argument Trump's attorneys are now making. But that wasn't what his attorneys were saying when he was being impeached. It seems that elementary point went over your head.

 

[Lesh]

This is a perfect example that Trump will say anything and his CULT(yes
Cult) will believe anything he says

 

[berg80]

GOP senators slap down Trump on Jan. 6 ‘hostages’

Republican senators are slapping down President Trump’s claim that people convicted of Jan. 6-related crimes are “hostages” who should be pardoned or set free by President Biden or a future preside…

thehill.com

Stefanik used the word "hostages" in an interview the other day regarding the 1/6 criminals. She epitomizes the lunacy that has infested Don's cult following. She was a pretty main steam Repub when she was first elected to Congress. Now she's among The Crazy.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Are you really this stupid?

The exclusive remedy for misconduct by a sitting President is impeachment. The maximum punishment that can be imposed by an impeachment-conviction is removal from office. If he is out of office, the impeachment is moot.

The remedy for criminal conduct when the President is out of office is through the cognizant criminal justice system (Federal, State, or local).

But you CANNOT use the latter remedy for conduct that occurred while the President was in office.

A legitimate question remains, to wit, Was the President's personal campaign to challenge the election results a part of his official duties as President? One could argue either way. But there is no contradiction in stating that you cannot convict a President in criminal court for his actions as President. The exclusive way of going after a sitting President is through impeachment, which is no longer possible.

Unless you are Nancy Pelosi.

If thats so, Biden could send in goons to wipe out all the Republican members of Congress, and string up Trump live on TV, and nothing could be done about it.

Yea...no.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But you CANNOT use the latter remedy for conduct that occurred while the President was in office.

This makes the POTUS above the law, in a free country nobody should be above the law.

 

[sparky]

Trump was officially out of office 1-21, not 1-6

~S~