Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

[Laodicean60]

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?

I don't know the laws. After this article, I would say yes.

"The Supreme Court has never held that a president is immune from criminal prosecution. It’s the Department of Justice that says that. And because the Department of Justice controls all the federal prosecutors, it means that no federal prosecutor, including the new special counsel [investigating Biden’s offsite storage of classified documents], can prosecute a sitting president."

Can Presidents Be Prosecuted, or Sued? Professor Explains Differing Visions of Immunity

With two U.S. presidents now facing special counsel investigations and one facing legal jeopardy on a host of other matters, University of Virginia law professor Saikrishna B. Prakash explains the differing visions of presidential immunity.

www.law.virginia.edu

 

[dogs4thewin]

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

I misunderstood the topic as a result of an early post now that I understand the actual topic I will stay on it as I was under the impression that I was staying on topic.

 

[Laodicean60]

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

It's not what I think it's what was said in the article. For one I don't think Trump is that smart about the laws anyway, that's why he hires lawyers.

 

[Arcangl86]

I don't know the laws. After this article, I would say yes.

"The Supreme Court has never held that a president is immune from criminal prosecution. It’s the Department of Justice that says that. And because the Department of Justice controls all the federal prosecutors, it means that no federal prosecutor, including the new special counsel [investigating Biden’s offsite storage of classified documents], can prosecute a sitting president."

Can Presidents Be Prosecuted, or Sued? Professor Explains Differing Visions of Immunity

With two U.S. presidents now facing special counsel investigations and one facing legal jeopardy on a host of other matters, University of Virginia law professor Saikrishna B. Prakash explains the differing visions of presidential immunity.

www.law.virginia.edu

That's not what the lawyers are arguing though. They are saying that regardless of if they are still in office or not, somebody cannot being prosecuted for acts taken as President unless those specific acts were the subject of an impeachment and successful removal.

 

[JustOneWay]

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

Good. Then you disagree with Trump and his lawyers.

 

[DaisyDay]

I KNOW that is what I am saying if he truly intended to use violence as a way to stay in power would it not be reasonable that he would violently resist leaving? Instead according to the poster that I asks that question he leaves four HOURS before his term is up.

He's not going to do his own violence and the military made it clear they were not helping him stay.

 

[Laodicean60]

That's not what the lawyers are arguing though. They are saying that regardless of if they are still in office or not, somebody cannot being prosecuted for acts taken as President unless those specific acts were the subject of an impeachment and successful removal.

Answering #141

 

[Always in His Presence]

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...

Nope. I can’t possibly speak for over 75,000,000 Americans. I can only speak for myself.

Can I ask you a question? 300 congressional inquiries, a 2.5 year investigation costing $40,000,000. 19 federal lawyers, 41 FBI investigators, over 1,000,000 pages of documents, 2,800 subpoenas, two House impeachments, now over 90 charges.

How do you explain (just in your own mind), how someone like that can have a better chance of being elected that the current President.

 

[wing2000]

I don't know the laws. After this article, I would say yes.

"The Supreme Court has never held that a president is immune from criminal prosecution. It’s the Department of Justice that says that. And because the Department of Justice controls all the federal prosecutors, it means that no federal prosecutor, including the new special counsel [investigating Biden’s offsite storage of classified documents], can prosecute a sitting president."

Can Presidents Be Prosecuted, or Sued? Professor Explains Differing Visions of Immunity

With two U.S. presidents now facing special counsel investigations and one facing legal jeopardy on a host of other matters, University of Virginia law professor Saikrishna B. Prakash explains the differing visions of presidential immunity.

www.law.virginia.edu

That article refers to prosecuting a President while he is still in office.
Trump is not a "sitting presdient."

 

[Laodicean60]

That article refers to prosecuting a President while he is still in office.
Trump is not a "sitting presdient."

Oh ok, then it must be ok because aren't they doing that now?

 

[Brihaha]

Nope. I can’t possibly speak for over 75,000,000 Americans. I can only speak for myself.

Can I ask you a question? 300 congressional inquiries, a 2.5 year investigation costing $40,000,000. 19 federal lawyers, 41 FBI investigators, over 1,000,000 pages of documents, 2,800 subpoenas, two House impeachments, now over 90 charges.

How do you explain (just in your own mind), how someone like that can have a better chance of being elected that the current President.

Cults are a fascinating phenomenon.

It is a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.

I thought you could offer insight.
I've been wrong before too.
It's not given that Mr Trump has a better chance of being elected than Biden either.

 

[wing2000]

Oh ok, then it must be ok because aren't they doing that now?

I don't know what you mean. The DOJ is prosecuting a former president.

 

[Laodicean60]

I don't know what you mean. The DOJ is prosecuting a former president.

No not the DOJ but the civil side. Excuse my ADHD for not explaining fully.

 

[Hank77]

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.

 

[Green Sun]

He would have to step down before impeachment to avoid any punishment.

Can you say President Harris?

Don't forget, Trump's own political and legal team has the view that the president can pardon himself too...

 

[Always in His Presence]

Cults are a fascinating phenomenon.

It is a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.

I thought you could offer insight.
I've been wrong before too.
It's not given that Mr Trump has a better chance of being elected than Biden either.

Well ‘cults’ are in the eye of the beholder. They are on both sides my friend. The difference today is one cult has a majority of the media promoting everything they say as gospel truth.

Let me ask the question another way. Why is the Democratic Party and Presidency NOT poised for a landslide election?

Why is the cult leader in jeopardy from even his own party. Nancy Pelosi and his former boss Barack Hussein Obama certainly seem to be distancing themselves selves and his approval ratings are some of the lowest in recent history for a sitting President.

Remember we are not speaking of just some small groups here and there supporting the Republican front runner, but tens of millions of voters system wide.

 

[Brihaha]

Well ‘cults’ are in the eye of the beholder. They are on both sides my friend. The difference today is one cult has a majority of the media promoting everything they say as gospel truth.

Let me ask the question another way. Why is the Democratic Party and Presidency NOT poised for a landslide election?

Why is the cult leader in jeopardy from even his own party. Nancy Pelosi and his former boss Barack Hussein Obama certainly seem to be distancing themselves selves and his approval ratings are some of the lowest in recent history for a sitting President.

Remember we are not speaking of just some small groups here and there supporting the Republican front runner, but tens of millions of voters system wide.

Nope. I can’t possibly answer another question from you if you won't offer me an answer to mine.

 

[wing2000]

Nope. I can’t possibly answer another question from you if you won't offer me an answer to mine.

...questions which have no relevance to yesterday's hearing before the US Court of Appeals.

 

[Green Sun]

Oh ok, then it must be ok because aren't they doing that now?

From the DoJ's perspective, that would be correct. Someone who is no longer a sitting president can be charged based on actions that were performed previously while as a president, since the individual in question no longer has the duties of the president.

Trump's team is arguing that even though Trump is no longer sitting president, any actions he took while president are covered under absolute immunity, and since he wasn't impeached and removed from office, he cannot be charged for anything done as president.

So the hypothetical the judge asked illustrates the logical conclusion of that - A sitting president could have the candidate they were running against assassinated, and if Congress didn't remove them through the impeachment and removal process, they could never be charged with a crime relating to that.

To further highlight the extremes of what absolute immunity entails, they could kill their opponent on stage, at a presidential debate, and if Congress didn't remove them from office, they would never face any legal repercussions.

That is, genuinely, the position and view of Trump and his lawyers in this case. The immunity would cover anything, since absolute immunity is absolute.

 

[Laodicean60]

That is, genuinely, the position and view of Trump and his lawyers in this case. The immunity would cover anything, since absolute immunity is absolute.

I think this is stupid.