Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

[MinTrut]

Trump does whatever he wants. Immunity would protect him from whatever crimes he has committed and will commit.

The case for Trump and immunity is over.

PI was intended to put a brake on efforts to hamstring the office over everyday executive action.

It was never intended to permit treason (the selling of secrets) or murder, though selling pardons has been common practice for quite awhile now.

The point of Trump's immunity claim - botched today by Trump's lawyers - is that nothing Trump did extends beyond acceptable executive boundaries, and therefore there is no basis to proceed against him.

The witch hunters will still lose, but this was a squandered opportunity.

 

[lennypartiv]

You sepelled attempted coup wrong.

I'm so glad the Spelling Police showed up.

 

[forkup]

Biden is vastly more dangerous than bin Laden was ever reputed to be, and Trump vastly less dangerous than his reputation would suggest.

So there are huge differences in terms of moral justice being served by their assassinations, both real and imagined.

Lord, how absolutely detestable you are. I've never ignored anybody on this site. It goes against my principle of finding even loathsome speech as at least worth listening too. In your case, and for the first time I will make an exception.

 

[forkup]

Actually I do, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion. They were there to address the claims of Trump's case, not a bunch of hypotheticals that had no bearing on his case.

.

And again. A judge is supposed to be aware of the precedent a ruling sets. That by definition means dealing in hypotheticals.

 

[forkup]

GFY, sap....You got fished in, just like Billy Bigmouth Bass.

Ah, make a claim and then refuse to provide anything to back it up. Got it.

 

[MinTrut]

Lord, how absolutely detestable you are.

Projection.

I've never ignored anybody on this site.

How noble.

It goes against my principle of finding even loathsome speech as at least worth listening too. In your case, and for the first time I will make an exception.

Your concession, and complete inability to refute my points, is duly noted.

 

[forkup]

lol…you all are reading waaaaay too much into this. It was a hypothetical…nobody is suggesting he would actually do that.

Again, this isn’t trump talking, it’s his lawyer…

As I said before I'm reading into it, exactly what is meant.

suggesting the logic of the argument of absolute presidential immunity that HE chooses to push. Leads to his lawyers having to concede it would allow the killing of a political rival WITHOUT him being held to account.

Even IF Trump would not contemplate it (and I'm not nearly as convinced as you are that he wouldn't). The fact that this is a precedent he's willing to set, disqualifies him as a candidate. Noone running for high public office should be willing to assert that winning that office makes him absolute immune from prosecution including for killing political rivals. And he is.

I have a problem with putting up the argument. Not the hypothetical.

I have a problem with the suggestion that becoming President grants complete immunity from consequences of actions while being President.

This particular judge deals with murder, but it's easy to see how it would extend to all kinds of behavior.

There have been throughout history more absolute leaders then there have been leaders who put themselves under the law. Arguably the biggest innovation of the Constitution was the concept that the laws of the land applied EQUALLY to every single American. (Mind you, I'm well aware of the less than absolute adherence to the principle when it came to black people and women at it's conception) but the principle was set.

This argument is diametrically opposed to it. That is my problem. The hypothetical simply illustrates the logical outcome of the argument.

 

[MinTrut]

As I said before I'm reading into it, exactly what is meant.


I have a problem with putting up the argument. Not the hypothetical.

I have a problem with the suggestion that becoming President grants complete immunity from consequences of actions while being President.

This particular judge deals with murder, but it's easy to see how it would extend to all kinds of behavior.

There have been throughout history more absolute leaders then there have been leaders who put themselves under the law. Arguably the biggest innovation of the Constitution was the concept that the laws of the land applied EQUALLY to every single American. (Mind you, I'm well aware of the less than absolute adherence to the principle when it came to black people and women at it's conception) but the principle was set.

This argument is diametrically opposed to it. That is my problem. The hypothetical simply illustrates the logical outcome of the argument.

IOW, it's okay to murder people if you approve of the murderer and victim, as with Obama and his targets.

The hypothetical was moronic, and extends beyond PI's intentions.

Trump's lawyers should have responded thusly, and further, reminded the judge that Trump's immunity stems from his remaining with PI's intended boundaries.

They fucked up, but the Democrat witch hunters will still lose.

So nice to now be able to refute Forkup's nonsense without having to deal with his subsequent incompetent defense of same.

 

[forkup]

In all practicality, presidents are immune while in office....

• They can pardon themselves and others for federal crimes except for impeachment.
• They probably make the call on most assassinations. There are collateral casualties.
• The DOJ reports to the president
• Biden would have been indicted by now otherwise.

From Forbes:
The DOJ has long held that presidents cannot be criminally indicted while in office—arguing in a memo it “would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch”—and the Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents can’t be held liable in civil cases for actions they undertook as part of their official duties, though the high court separately found in Clinton v. Jones that presidents can be sued in civil court for actions taken before they were president.
[Link]

So, if they are immune while in office, how can you possibly charge them for things while they were in office? Makes no sense to me.

Whether it is a good idea or not is a different question.

Regards,
Jim

Thank you, for engaging the premise of the OP. You seem to be the only one actually willing to do so. And it takes courage I think. I make it a point to recognize somebody who doesn't dodge difficult questions.

Now on to the answer.

-Self-Pardons are legally untested, and the principle itself was never even contemplated until Trump contemplated it. Not even Nixon was as brazen.
-Sure a president can call assassinations. A power derived from the extensive powers granted by the Constitution in his role as commander in chief. They are national security related. Killing a political opponent or many other crimes don't fall under national security.
-Yes the DOJ reports to the President. That doesn't put him above the laws passed by Congress though.
-Whether or not Biden would have been indicted by now is irrelevant to the discussion, I will note however that at the moment, blustering aside Republicans themselves aren't even sure they have enough evidence to impeach, a much lower bar then what is required to convict someone.

First of, a memo of the DOJ carries little actual legal weight until it's actually tested. For instance Bill Barr put out a memo concerning minimum sentencing and promptly broke those rules when it came to sentencing Roger Stone. Prompting the line prosecutors to resign.

Having said that this particular memo I agree with. A president has a certain qualified immunity for his actions while in office. This is right and proper. Both for practical and due process reasons.

That's not what Trump is arguing for. He's arguing for absolute immunity. An entirely different and completely unsupported proposition.

 

[MinTrut]

Thank you, for engaging the premise of the OP. You seem to be the only one actually willing to do so. And it takes courage I think. I make it a point to recognize somebody who doesn't dodge difficult questions.

Now on to the answer.

-Self-Pardons are legally untested, and the principle itself was never even contemplated until Trump contemplated it. Not even Nixon was as brazen.
-Sure a president can call assassinations. A power derived from the extensive powers granted by the Constitution in his role as commander in chief. They are national security related. Killing a political opponent or many other crimes don't fall under national security.
-Yes the DOJ reports to the President. That doesn't put him above the laws passed by Congress though.
-Whether or not Biden would have been indicted by now is irrelevant to the discussion, I will note however that at the moment, blustering aside Republicans themselves aren't even sure they have enough evidence to impeach, a much lower bar then what is required to convict someone.

First of, a memo of the DOJ carries little actual legal weight until it's actually tested. For instance Bill Barr put out a memo concerning minimum sentencing and promptly broke those rules when it came to sentencing Roger Stone. Prompting the line prosecutors to resign.

Having said that this particular memo I agree with. A president has a certain qualified immunity for his actions while in office. This is right and proper. Both for practical and due process reasons.

That's not what Trump is arguing for. He's arguing for absolute immunity. An entirely different and completely unsupported proposition.

Of course PI offers only limited/qualified immunity; Trump's lawyers made a properly broad initial claim which they should have backed away from when presented with the judge's ill-informed/moronic hypotheticals.

None of Trump's actions stretch beyond the boundaries of PI, a point his lawyers failed to default to today.

But as previously noted, you DO support the right of presidents to kill extra-judicially when you support the president/despise their targets.

 

[OKTexas]

And again. A judge is supposed to be aware of the precedent a ruling sets. That by definition means dealing in hypotheticals.

Good God, are your really that stupid? It's a damn 3 judge court of appeals panel, regardless of how they rule there will be a request for an en banc appeal. If they uphold the panels ruling it will be appealed to SCOTUS, the last thing the panel needs to worry about is precedent. But they multiply the possibilities of being overturned by trying to broaden the scope of the case beyond it's original context.

.

 

[forkup]

Good God, are your really that stupid? It's a damn 3 judge court of appeals panel, regardless of how they rule there will be a request for an en banc appeal. If they uphold the panels ruling it will be appealed to SCOTUS, the last thing the panel needs to worry about is precedent. But they multiply the possibilities of being overturned by trying to broaden the scope of the case beyond it's original context.

.

Every single level of judicial jurisprudence has to be aware of precedent. It's like saying a judge shouldn't consider how a ruling will fare on possible appeal.
.
The idea that precedent is only set on the higher levels is patently ridiculous.

By the way, unless and until Trump asks for it. An en banc review and SCOTUS appeal is a hypothetical. But I guess dealing in hypotheticals isn't a problem when it furthers YOUR argument?

But by all means call me stupid some more. Maybe next time I won't notice it's simply a lack of a compelling argument.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm suggesting the logic of the argument of absolute presidential immunity that HE chooses to push. Leads to his lawyers having to concede it would allow the killing of a political rival WITHOUT him being held to account.

Even IF Trump would not contemplate it (and I'm not nearly as convinced as you are that he wouldn't). The fact that this is a precedent he's willing to set, disqualifies him as a candidate. Noone running for high public office should be willing to assert that winning that office makes him absolute immune from prosecution including for killing political rivals. And he is.

When Trump was president he stayed out of Americans lives. He never demanded anything from us try to restrict anything. With Biden and Democrats that's all we get.

 

[OKTexas]

Every single level of judicial jurisprudence has to be aware of precedent. It's like saying a judge shouldn't consider how a ruling will fare on possible appeal.
.
The idea that precedent is only set on the higher levels is patently ridiculous.

Yeah, they're aware of following president set by or allowed to be set by SCOTUS. A court of appeals only establishes precedent if SCOTUS declines to grant cert to a case appealed to them. Then the appeals court decision stands and establishes precedent. No circuit court can establish precedent unless their decision is not appealed, which doesn't happen too often because their decisions are normally based on.................you guessed it............., established precedent.

.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, they're aware of following president set by or allowed to be set by SCOTUS. A court of appeals only establishes precedent if SCOTUS declines to grant cert to a case appealed to them. Then the appeals court decision stands and establishes precedent. No circuit court can establish precedent unless their decision is not appealed, which doesn't happen too often because their decisions are normally based on.................you guessed it............., established precedent.

.

It's funny how conditional you claim everything is.

"Well a circuit court shouldn't consider setting a precedent because it's rare that they need too."

"Well an appeals court shouldn't consider setting precedent even if what they are ruling is precedent because..." Well, I'm curious actually. If you concede that an appeals court sets precedent. And this argument was brought before an appeals court. Why shouldn't they consider that they're setting precedent if it isn't appealed, or SCOTUS doesn't pick it up?

 

[forkup]

When Trump was president he stayed out of Americans lives. He never demanded anything from us try to restrict anything. With Biden and Democrats that's all we get.

Except that is, recognizing that a president can kill political opponents.

Even IF I recognize your feelings, that you like Trump as a President. It still seems like a big price to pay.

 

[forkup]

He doesn't have immunity from impeachment, nor would he have immunity from criminal prosecution following what would be a obvious removal from office.

As previously noted, the question was asked in order to get bedwetting loons like you to wet the bed....It worked.

Unless of course he resigns. At that point he's of the hook.

 

[beautress]

Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive&…

thehill.com

The people that are arguing that President Biden is abusing his office because a Special Counsel has indicted his political rival, is now arguing a President can KILL his political opponent and get away with it, providing he isn't impeached for the deed or resigns if impeachment looms. Feel free to justify it.

Judge Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, noted that a president could resign rather than face impeachment, something that under the framework of Trump’s attorneys would allow them to dodge future prosecution.

Amendment 25 is another alternative, but the people may not care for the President's successor, so all concerned should think about how they're going to get a 2/3rds majority to void or rewrite Amendment 25 into something that is better for the American people than it was in 1776. Or just live with Ms. Giggles till the end of the term.

Section 1​

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.​

---

Section 2​

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.​

---

Section 3​

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.​

---

Section 4​

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.​

​

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.​

​

If gross corruption is the cause of removal from office, a law requiring resignation of the entire executive branch would take a 2/3rds majority of the House and Senate to end all positions in the Executive Branch, and do you think Chuckie Schumer is going to go along with that for the American people's benefit? Yeah, and there's a bridge in Brooklyn that's fer sale. ​

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

McConnell: Trump liable in court for Jan. 6 riot, violence​

The Courier-Journal
https://www.courier-journal.com › politics › 2021/02/13
Feb 13, 2021 — After voting to acquit former President Donald Trump, Sen. Mitch McConnell suggested the Republican remains liable in court for his recent ...

Judges skeptical of Trump arguments for broad criminal ...​

The Hill
https://thehill.com › regulation › court-battles › 43975...
17 hours ago — A three-judge panel during a hearing Tuesday appeared broadly skeptical of former President Trump's claims that he enjoys broad presidential ...


A three-judge panel during a hearing Tuesday appeared broadly skeptical of former President Trump’s claims that he enjoys broad presidential immunity from prosecution on charges related to the 2020 presidential election.

Trump’s lawyers took a firm position, arguing former presidents such as Trump can only face prosecution if they are first impeached and then convicted by the Senate. They have asked the court to toss the case entirely.



Trump and his cult claim a president can face justice from the justice department and not congress in 2021.
Then in 2024 they claim the president needs to be impeached by congress first, to face justice, by the justice department.

 

[forkup]

Amendment 25 is another alternative, but the people may not care for the President's successor, so all concerned should think about how they're going to get a 2/3rds majority to void or rewrite Amendment 25 into something that is better for the American people than it was in 1776. Or just live with Ms. Giggles till the end of the term.

Section 1​

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.​

---

Section 2​

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.​

---

Section 3​

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.​

---

Section 4​

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.​

​

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.​

​

If gross corruption is the cause of removal from office, a law requiring resignation of the entire executive branch would take a 2/3rds majority of the House and Senate to end all positions in the Executive Branch, and do you think Chuckie Schumer is going to go along with that for the American people's benefit? Yeah, and there's a bridge in Brooklyn that's fer sale. ​

Neither Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, or "Ms. Giggles" is arguing in court that killing a political opponent or "gross corruption" for that matter by a president can't be prosecuted.
.
Donald J. Trump is. So I'll ask. Do you agree with the assertion?