Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

[Akita Suggagaki]

so you are claiming that Trump will murder people that do not agree with him ( or even have it done?)

He doesn't work that way. But he does like to get his fanatic base stirred up so that he need not "order" anything.

 

[Brihaha]

You mean they did the same thing for him this election or last election?

When Trump was the incumbent candidate. I doubt states will do it for at-large presidential bids. Seems rather unlawful and un-American. But I know very little. Perhaps that is why tribal politicians place so much value on picking nominees for our Supreme Court. To gain and keep their political powers. States regularly test the Supreme Court to see how far they can legally go with their "laws".

 

[Brihaha]

I think Trump needs to fire his legal team. Besides an insurrection the government doesn't have a legal right to kill citizens, The Posse Comitatus Act also I think the constitution prohibits the use of lethal force outside a combat zone from the military.

It seems Donald is already relegated to using his "B" team of attorneys. Quality defense lawyers shun the man for obvious reasons. I would be shocked if any of his attorneys were aware of the Posse Comitatus Act. Besides, Mr Trump already seems to have his "enforcers" outside of actual law enforcement. Remember those fellas in the vans removing the protesters? And Lev Parnas and comrade Igor Fruman?

 

[Laodicean60]

Perhaps that is why tribal politicians place

I think that is what we've become. When I was in the Republican tribe media manipulated me into thinking that the left was a danger to the Republic and the left's media did the same against the right. Each American here feels they are protecting their country against the evil ones. Once I left my tribe and looking back I find that both parties have some things right about issues in America but our politicians are too stupid to implement them. Politicians are afraid to make the sitting President look good. It's all about the party now instead of the citizens. Instead of doing things that were said in the past they go from extremism to more extremism.

 

[Brihaha]

I think that is what we've become. When I was in the Republican tribe media manipulated me into thinking that the left was a danger to the Republic and the left's media did the same against the right. Each American here feels they are protecting their country against the evil ones. Once I left my tribe and looking back I find that both parties have some things right about issues in America but our politicians are too stupid to implement them. Politicians are afraid to make the sitting President look good. It's all about the party now instead of the citizens. Instead of doing things that were said in the past they go from extremism to more extremism.

I am hoping once more voters figure out how counterproductive this tribalism is they will start voting for actual candidates instead of letters. Some will surely understand how politicians use the tribalism to benefit themselves, not us citizens. I'm not convinced though. Americans still have a journey to find reality again thru this haze of political polarization.

I don't always agree with you on everything but I think you have an open mind and I do respect your opinions. Peace

 

[Laodicean60]

I don't always agree with you

Nor do I expect you to. Peace

 

[wing2000]

Let me asks you a very simple yes or no question. Did Trump refuse to leave the white house at noon on 1-20-21 at noon?

Can you please stay on topic?
Your question is not relevant to the court case - whether a POTUS has absolute immunity.

 

[durangodawood]

I have heard that some states supposedly will not allow anyone but Biden to run on the democratic ticket how true that is of course we do not know.

States not allowing it?

Or the D party in certain states?

 

[7thKeeper]

I am hoping once more voters figure out how counterproductive this tribalism is they will start voting for actual candidates instead of letters. Some will surely understand how politicians use the tribalism to benefit themselves, not us citizens. I'm not convinced though. Americans still have a journey to find reality again thru this haze of political polarization.

I don't always agree with you on everything but I think you have an open mind and I do respect your opinions. Peace

Tribalism is one reason I'm happy that there are multiple parties here and no single one can have a majority. It keeps actual debate and variance of opinions alive better. Not that there isn't tribalism at all, it's unfortunately part of human nature, but it's extremes are kept in check, unlike in a two party system.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Can you say President Harris?

Not without becoming physically ill.

Has anyone read the statement contextually. If you did, what was said about Barack Hussein Obama?

Can you quote it?

 

[Brihaha]

Tribalism is one reason I'm happy that there are multiple parties here and no single one can have a majority. It keeps actual debate and variance of opinions alive better. Not that there isn't tribalism at all, it's unfortunately part of human nature, but it's extremes are kept in check, unlike in a two party system.

Yeah, it would likely behoove America to have several political affiliates too. Diversity of opinions is not the enemy people convince themselves it is. Maybe one day if we survive this brutal Trump tribulation lol...

 

[Always in His Presence]

What will people that do not like him do if he wins and it is proven to be a fair election or even if people choose not to look into whether it is fair or not?

I imagine it will be similar to his election in 2016. The elections denial will begin day one. The calls for his impeachment will be made before he is sworn in. There will be violence and public property destroyed, people injured and some deaths.

Exactly like 2016, but I think it will be on a greater scale.

 

[A2SG]

Let me asks you a very simple yes or no question. Did Trump refuse to leave the white house at noon on 1-20-21 at noon?

Yes, he did. But, according to some reports, despite his public words, he did not do so entirely willingly.

-- A2SG, have a feeling his Secret Service detail may have had a word with him as well....

 

[wing2000]

Judge Florence Y. Pan, an appointee of President Biden, asked Sauer if a president could be criminally prosecuted if he ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. Such a scenario — ordering the military to do something — would fall under presidential duties. But having a rival murdered would also be a clear violation of the law.

Sauer said the Justice Department could only charge the president for giving such an order if the Senate votes to convict him first. Pan also asked him whether a president could sell pardons or nuclear secrets without being prosecuted. Sauer responded similarly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/09/trump-immunity-hearing-takeaways/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

​

• US Constitution --- Section 3​

  • Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments
  • Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The Constitution is clear on this point.
To suggest a POTUS must first be impeached (convicted) by the US Senate before he can be criminally prosecuted is ludicrous.

Noting:
"....in Trump’s second impeachment trial, his own lawyer Bruce Castor assured the Senate that “the text of the Constitution…makes very clear that a former President is subject to criminal sanction after his presidency for any illegal acts he commits.”

January 9, 2024

On the docket today in front of three judges on the U.S.

open.substack.com

 

[Always in His Presence]

When I was young and part of the Democratic tribe, I was taught what to think and how Jimmy Carter was the only way out of the Republican catastrophe from Nixon.

It wasn’t until his third year in office I started seeing and experiencing the reality of his reign. Buying gas only on certain days of the week, a weakened military, a lessened place in the global status (issues with Iran and others), car loans at 12%, home mortgages at 15%. Runaway inflation. I woke up! I separated myself from the tribe think, tribe speak and became a conservative independent.

We are reliving it again, only worse. IMHO

The old adage is quite correct. “Those that do not learn from history are destined to relive it”

 

[Laodicean60]

Tribleism will keep you from being open to the opposing view as I see on these forums. We all know who is right wing and left hear and as soon as anything is posted the warfare begins. Question, what is the opposing party doing good for the country?

Tribalism is one reason I'm happy that there are multiple parties here and no single one can have a majority. It keeps actual debate and variance of opinions alive better. Not that there isn't tribalism at all, it's unfortunately part of human nature, but it's extremes are kept in check, unlike in a two party system.

 

[wing2000]

When I was young and part of the Democratic tribe, I was taught what to think and how Jimmy Carter was the only way out of the Republican catastrophe from Nixon.

It wasn’t until his third year in office I started seeing and experiencing the reality of his reign. Buying gas only on certain days of the week, a weakened military, a lessened place in the global status (issues with Iran and others), car loans at 12%, home mortgages at 15%. Runaway inflation. I woke up! I separated myself from the tribe think, tribe speak and became a conservative independent.

We are reliving it again, only worse. IMHO

The old adage is quite correct. “Those that do not learn from history are destined to relive it”

....in the 40 plus years I have been observing US politics, I never thought I would see the day when a former POTUS would argue that he has absolute immunity and cannot be criminally prosecuted.

 

[wing2000]

Tribleism will keep you from being open to the opposing view as I see on these forums. We all know who is right wing and left hear and as soon as anything is posted the warfare begins. Question, what is the opposing party doing good for the country?

Start another thread on that topic....

 

[WolfGate]

Put what into practice killing people? Well, we are not God so I do not know by you all's logic if he would or not, but what is to say he is that kind of person?

Not killing people IMHO, but if that is not illegal for a President to do, it follows very simply that all other less extreme things he might do that are illegal for every other American would not be illegal for him. would also not be illegal.

More to the point, that concept should scare every American - at some point someone you don't like will have the Presidency. The "needs to be impeached and convicted by the Senate to be prosecuted" argument should also scare every American. Justice is supposed to be apolitical ideally, and while that is very hard to achieve our system tries to do that. Saying that a political body has to decide if a politician (who will either be in their party or the other party) can be tried by the courts is the exact opposite of apolitical.

 

[wing2000]

In response to Trump's claim before the Court of Appeals, the prosecution's written filling noted:

“[it] would grant immunity from criminal prosecution to a President who accepts a bribe in exchange for directing a lucrative government contract to the payer;
a President who instructs the FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy;
a President who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics;
or a President who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, because in each of these scenarios, the President could assert that he was simply executing the laws; or communicating with the Department of Justice;
or discharging his powers as Commander-in-Chief;
or engaging in foreign diplomacy.
Under the defendant’s framework, the Nation would have no recourse to deter a President from inciting his supporters during a State of the Union address to kill opposing lawmakers—thereby hamstringing any impeachment proceeding—to ensure that he remains in office unlawfully.”