Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

[Hank77]

What lawyer in his right mind would answer a hypothetical question?

You should probably listen to some SCOTUS hearings. Hypothetical questions are asked by the panel all the time and are answered by the attorneys on both sides of the argument.

Calendars and Lists

 

[Always in His Presence]

In the last 30 years that I have been observing, I would never have thought our politics would evolve into what we see today. Even in the heavily 5 week contested G Bush election both Bush and Gore were focused on positive rhetoric to bring Americans together but today we see none of that. today.

In the 47 years I have been an active voter I never thought I would see the loosing candidate go on a five year campaign, book signing tour and found an organization to RESIST the incoming President.

In 47 years I would have never thought the opposing side would call for an impeachment BEFORE the man took office.

The list goes on.

 

[JustOneWay]

Again, I am still not sure that he called on his supporters to be violent.

He has told his supporters to be violent many times on the campaign trail, and at his rallies.

This is what he does. He empowers his supporters to be violent.

"When Donald Trump said Sunday that he might pay the legal fees of a man charged with hitting a protester in the face at one of his rallies, it was the latest of many occasions when the leading Republican candidate for president appeared to condone or accept violence by supporters."

Trump's endorsement of violence reaches new level: He may pay legal fees for assault suspect

When Donald Trump said Sunday that he might pay the legal fees of a man charged with hitting a protester in the face at one of his rallies, it was the latest of many occasions when the leading Republican candidate for president appeared to condone or accept violence by supporters.

www.latimes.com

 

[wing2000]

The lawyers mentioned it being OK for president to order a SEAL team to kill his opponents, but are his opponents people that disagree with him OR is it people who wish to harm America at large.? I am not sure if that question was not a loaded question.

The judge asked the question:

Appeals court Judge Florence Pan, a nominee of President Joe Biden, posed the hypothetical questions to flesh out the bounds of Sauer’s immunity argument.
Broadly, his argument relies on the theory that presidents are shielded from prosecution for official actions if there isn’t an impeachment conviction first.

“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six,”
Pan said “He would have to be, and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer said. “I asked you a yes or no question,” Pan said.
"If he were impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied.
“So your answer is no,” Pan said.
Sauer responded, “My answer is qualified yes. There is a political process that would have to occur.”

Judge asks if a president can order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival

Donald Trump attended a federal appeals court hearing Tuesday as his lawyers argue the former president has immunity from prosecution related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Follow here for the latest live news updates.

www.cnn.com

 

[Brihaha]

In the 47 years I have been an active voter I never thought I would see the loosing candidate go on a five year campaign, book signing tour and found an organization to RESIST the incoming President.

In 47 years I would have never thought the opposing side would call for an impeachment BEFORE the man took office.

The list goes on.

Is it possible for you to explain the rationale for those Americans who seem to want more of your list occurrences by reelecting Mr Trump? Notwithstanding his eventual convictions in the offing. Some of us are trying to understand...

 

[Hank77]

The lawyers mentioned it being OK for president to order a SEAL team to kill his opponents, but are his opponents people that disagree with him OR is it people who wish to harm America at large.? I am not sure if that question was not a loaded question.

The question wasn't asked to decide whether he would be guilty of a crime or not.
The question was to determine if a president has his political rival killed could he be prosecuted.
Trump's lawyer, Sauer, said only if he had been previously impeached and found guilty by the Senate.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The judge asked the question:

Appeals court Judge Florence Pan, a nominee of President Joe Biden, posed the hypothetical questions to flesh out the bounds of Sauer’s immunity argument.
Broadly, his argument relies on the theory that presidents are shielded from prosecution for official actions if there isn’t an impeachment conviction first.

“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six,”
Pan said “He would have to be, and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer said. “I asked you a yes or no question,” Pan said.
"If he were impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied.
“So your answer is no,” Pan said.
Sauer responded, “My answer is qualified yes. There is a political process that would have to occur.”

Judge asks if a president can order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival

Donald Trump attended a federal appeals court hearing Tuesday as his lawyers argue the former president has immunity from prosecution related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Follow here for the latest live news updates.

www.cnn.com

a qualified yes is not a direct yes. There is a such thing as a justified and there is a legal process to determine whether a homicide was justified.

 

[Laodicean60]

So he gets up there with inflammatory remarks and then is silent in the White House as they break into the capital.

Jan 6. was a total screw-up from the top down. Security for one thing and Trump's rhetoric for another. Trump is a very arrogant man.

 

[Larniavc]

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?

Off topic.

The topic is Mr Trump instructing his legal team to assert his right to do an assassination on his political enemies.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Is it possible for you to explain the rationale for those Americans who seem to want more of your list occurrences by reelecting Mr Trump? Notwithstanding his eventual convictions in the offing. Some of us are trying to understand...

What convictions? Note I did not asks what civil judgements.

 

[wing2000]

The question wasn't asked to decide whether he would be guilty of a crime or not.
The question was to determine if a president has his political rival killed could he be prosecuted.
Trump's lawyer, Sauer, said only if he had been previously impeached and found guilty by the Senate.

Who here agrees with Sauer's postition that a POTUS must first be convicted by the US Senate (Impeachment) before he can be criminally indicated?

And if so, on what basis?

 

[Larniavc]

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.

Can you please stick to the topic?

 

[Laodicean60]

You should probably listen to some SCOTUS hearings. Hypothetical questions are asked by the panel all the time and are answered by the attorneys on both sides of the argument.

Calendars and Lists

I guess but I'm no lawyer and if I was I wouldn't it's an easy way to get trapped.

 

[Brihaha]

What convictions? Note I did not asks what civil judgements.

Dude, the word eventual is completely visible. What's with all the questions?

 

[Larniavc]

so then according to you all the other side would accept the results? I have stated that I do not believed he engaged in the claimed behavior even if a FEW of his followers did. Also I cannot help, but notice that along his followers there were few if any violent protests.

This is nothing to do with the topic. If you have no comment about the OP please stop detailing it.

The topic is about Mr Trump’s legal team claiming Mr Trump can legally kill people.

 

[Laodicean60]

Mr Trump instructing

I didn't see that in the article.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

Do you think the legal team came up with this on their own or do you think Mr Trump instructed them to do so.

 

[com7fy8]

Donald himself might be immune from prosecution, but whoever does the killing would not have immunity. Plus, any person told to kill someone could decide not to, plus be a witness against Donald during an impeachment hearing.

He could be impeached, though not prosecuted.

By the way - - that attack on the Capitol could not have changed the election results. Because the attackers would not have military power to control the United States. Even if they did take control of the Capitol and politicians, then there would be more proof of their intentions . . . so they could be prosecuted with more certainty of their intentions.

 

[wing2000]

a qualified yes is not a direct yes. There is a such thing as a justified and there is a legal process to determine whether a homicide was justified.

I think you're misunderstanding the argument.
Sauer's qualification was: Yes, he can be prosecuted but first, the US Senate would have to convict him during an impeachment trial. .

 

[dogs4thewin]

This is nothing to do with the topic. If you have no comment about the OP please stop detailing it.

The topic is about Mr Trump’s legal team claiming Mr Trump can legally kill people.

OH so the topic is not whether or not Trump would or did violence only if that would be something acceptable for him to do as president.