Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

[Larniavc]

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.

Does it matter? In what world is it acceptable for Mr Trump to have anyone he defines as his enemy killed by the State?

 

[JustOneWay]

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

At this point I believe republicans could not care less it Trump is convicted. They will just say it was a partisan conviction, and the judges and jury were all in on it and solidify their resolve to vote for Trump again.

 

[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.

Please read my post #106 to you before considering this hypothetical scenario.

Trump is reelected in Nov. 2024. In January just before Trump takes office Commander-in-Chief Biden commands Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump. As soon as the deed is done Biden resigns putting him outside of the authority of Congress to impeach and convict him.
If we agree with Trump's lawyer, Sauer, Biden could never be prosecuted for the crime of having Trump assassinated. Not by the Congress or any court in the nation.

Is that what you believe the authors of the Constitution intended?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Does it matter? In what world is it acceptable for Mr Trump to have anyone he defines as his enemy killed by the State?

yes it matters because if a person is trying to harm him or America then he has the right to either order them killed or kill them himself that is called self defense/defense of others. On the other hand it is not acceptable in any world to have someone killed simply because you disagree with them or do not like their actions or choices.

 

[JustOneWay]

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.

Did you not read what the judge said?

"to assassinate a political rival?"

 

[Desk trauma]

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

Should he acquire a criminal conviction I away an exception being made for that as well.

 

[Hank77]

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.

Again it's not about determining if he would be guilty or not, it's about whether he could even be prosecuted to determine by a court whether he was guilty or not.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Please read my post #106 to you before considering this hypothetical scenario.

Trump is reelected in Nov. 2024. In January just before Trump takes office Commander-in-Chief Biden commands Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump. As soon as the deed is done Biden resigns putting him outside of the authority of Congress to impeach and convict him.
If we agree with Trump's lawyer, Sauer, Biden could never be prosecuted for the crime of having Trump assassinated. Not by the Congress or any court in the nation.

Is that what you believe the authors of the Constitution intended?

nope I do not believe the authors would find that it was OK for a president to do such things and not face punishment.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Again it's not about determining if he would be guilty or not, it's about whether he could even be prosecuted to determine by a court whether he was guilty or not.

I think I am starting to understand now that it is about if he could even face charges not whether he is guilty of any particular charges.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

I’m not arguing with you. Stay on topic.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I’m not arguing with you. Stay on topic.

I understand the topic now that was the point of the quoted post

 

[childeye 2]

yes it matters because if a person is trying to harm him or America then he has the right to either order them killed or kill them himself that is called self defense/defense of others. On the other hand it is not acceptable in any world to have someone killed simply because you disagree with them or do not like their actions or choices.

This above makes sense. But the issue here is the term "immunity", from prosecution for a crime, which by definition means immunity from doing a crime, not immunity from defending America.

Definition of Immunity​

Noun

1. Exemption from criminal prosecution, legal liability, punishment, or other consequence on certain conditions.

 

[Larniavc]

yes it matters because if a person is trying to harm him or America then he has the right to either order them killed or kill them himself that is called self defense/defense of others. On the other hand it is not acceptable in any world to have someone killed simply because you disagree with them or do not like their actions or choices.

You obviously have not read the article.

POLITICAL. RIVALS.

 

[Hank77]

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.

Not legally kill people just getting away with killing people without going to trial like anyone else would. It's about Presidential immunity to prosecution.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That makes perfect sense, but the issue here is the term "immunity" from prosecution, which by definition means immunity from doing a crime, not immunity from defending America.

which no a president should be held to the same standard as everyone else

 

[dogs4thewin]

You obviously have not read the article.

POLITICAL. RIVALS.

I did in fact read the article.

 

[Arcangl86]

I think I am starting to understand now that it is about if he could even face charges not whether he is guilty of any particular charges.

Exactly. His argument was that the current cases against him need to be dropped because anything he does as President is granted immunity. The judge just asked a hypo that showed the extreme results such a hardline rule could result in.

 

[Desk trauma]

I did in fact read the article.

Just choosing to ignore that part then?

 

[Hank77]

nope I do not believe the authors would find that it was OK for a president to do such things and not face punishment.

I agree and that is what this whole appeal is about.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Exactly. His argument was that the current cases against him need to be dropped because anything he does as President is granted immunity. The judge just asked a hypo that showed the extreme results such a hardline rule could result in.

I think I misunderstood the whole thread after a poster very early on asked if the lawyers were "thinking ahead" I took that post to mean that the poster felt that the lawyers were asserting that Trump WOULD murder people.