Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

SOURCE: The Hill

http://tinyurl.com/47wwt57b

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-team-argues-assassin ation-of-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/

"Former President TrumprCOs 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 executiverCOs broad immunity to criminal prosecution.

"The hypothetical was presented to Trump attorney John Sauer who answered with a 'qualified yes' that a former president would be immune from prosecution on that matter or even on selling pardons.

"In the hearing that reviewed a motion from TrumprCOs team to toss his election interference charges, Sauer argued that presidents can only be criminally prosecuted if they have already been tried and convicted by the Senate.

rCL'He would have to be impeached and convicted,' Sauer replied.

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

rCL'What kind of world are we living in rCa if a president orders his SEAL team to murder a political rival and then resigns or is not impeached rCo that is not a crime? I think that is an extraordinarily frightening future that should weigh heavily on the courtrCOs decision,' (Special council lawyer James) Pearce said."

This has been on the TV news today. If The Hill is not a good enough source, please Google "Trump lawyer argues assassination" and you will get plenty more.

REMEMBER, if the court rules in Trump's favor, this would also pertain to any other current and future President, like Joe Biden. What forced them into this absurd argument is the need to be able to frame all activities that a President might engage in as "official duties" and therefore immune from prosecution without a successful impeachment proceeding.

#
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

"In the hearing that reviewed a motion from Trump's team to toss his election interference charges, Sauer argued that presidents can only be criminally prosecuted if they have already been tried and convicted by the Senate.

"'He would have to be impeached and convicted,' Sauer replied.

As an aside here, Trump's lawyer Sauer is also indicating that there is no Double Jeopardy for those who are tried in the Senate via impeachment
hearing. He is instead arguing that a President MUST be tried and
convicted in the Senate BEFORE they can then be criminally prosecuted.

In other words, they can go through an impeachment hearing in the Senate,
then face a criminal court case beyond that impeachement hearing and, per Trump's lawyer, it is NOT considered Double Jeopardy.


* SLMR 2.1a * "Ummm, trouble with grammar have I? Yes!" --Yoda
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 09 Jan 2024, Mike Powell said the following...

REMEMBER, if the court rules in Trump's favor, this would also pertain
to any other current and future President, like Joe Biden. What forced them into this absurd argument is the need to be able to frame all activities that a President might engage in as "official duties" and therefore immune from prosecution without a successful impeachment proceeding.

It's not an official duty to assassinate your rival.... Unless you're a Clinton. But what was a reasonable argument was what the Trump Team put forward is that every President, for the most part, will face litigation going forward... Eg... Obama killing Americans in Libya during a drone strike... Or an other example.... South Texas residents sue Biden for not executing the laws on the books...

Your TDS is strong....

IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
AKA Joe Schweier
SysOp of 4A 6F 65 73 42 42 53
-=JoesBBS.com=-

... A Mystic asking for a hot-dog: "Make me one with everything"

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)

REMEMBER, if the court rules in Trump's favor, this would also pertain to any other current and future President, like Joe Biden. What forced them into this absurd argument is the need to be able to frame all activities that a President might engage in as "official duties" and therefore immune from prosecution without a successful impeachment proceeding.

It's not an official duty to assassinate your rival.... Unless you're a Clinto
But what was a reasonable argument was what the Trump Team put forward is th
every President, for the most part, will face litigation going forward... Eg.
Obama killing Americans in Libya during a drone strike... Or an other example
.. South Texas residents sue Biden for not executing the laws on the books...

If they did things that outside of "official duties" are ILLEGAL, they
*should* face litigation.

That seems to be something that you, and Trump's legal team, are completely missing.

Your TDS is strong....

No, but Trump's lawyers may very well have it, as they seem to be arguing things that are likely to cause him to lose his case. If I were them, I would have never attempted such an absurd argument. I would very much not have
said '"conditionally yes" he can does that just so long as he ain't been convicted by impeachment.' The answer should have been, "no, having a rival killed is not an official duty, is not what we are asking for, and is not
an offense that would be covered by immunity."

You do realize that if the court buys the argument so stupidly presented and declares that the President is immune from prosecution so long as he is not impeached, that means that Biden can have Trump killed (because he, too is
now legally immune) and then can resign (thereby dodging impeachment) and
get away with it?

I DON'T want Biden to have such powers, do you?

Wanting to be sure that Joe Biden and future Presidents are held responsible for illegal activities, even though it would mean that Trump won't be found immune, doesn't equate to TDS. It equates a desire not to have the country ruled by anyone -- right, left, Republican, Democrat -- who can do
whatever they want to whoever they want.

OTOH, wanting Trump to be found immune despite what that means for any
future President -- or Obama or Clinton -- IS probably a sign
of some sort of derangement syndrome. At the very least, it is a very
strong sign that you are not thinking this through.

The US is not Canada. Our President cannot do just anything they
want, like freezing bank accounts or jailing journalists, like the
Canadian PM apparently can.


* SLMR 2.1a * STICK \'stik\ n. 1: A somewhat nonfunctional boomerang.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 11 Jan 2024, Mike Powell said the following...

If they did things that outside of "official duties" are ILLEGAL, they *should* face litigation.

That seems to be something that you, and Trump's legal team, are completely missing.

Nobody but you are missing things. In our time... Al Gore contests 2000 election... perfectly fine. 2016 Hillary contests election... She wrote 3 books called What Happened... What Really Happened and the last one was What Really Really Happened... And there was Stacey Abrams who still thinks she's the Governor of Georgia. All celebrated except for Trump... He says got t5o the Capital and peacefully let your voices heard.

Where did Trump say storm the capital... where did he say I'm not leaving the office... When did he leave... Where was the Insurrection?? Who had guns??

IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
AKA Joe Schweier
SysOp of 4A 6F 65 73 42 42 53
-=JoesBBS.com=-

... Documentation: The worst part of programming.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)

Nobody but you are missing things. In our time... Al Gore contests 2000 elect
n... perfectly fine. 2016 Hillary contests election... She wrote 3 books call
What Happened... What Really Happened and the last one was What Really Really
appened... And there was Stacey Abrams who still thinks she's the Governor of orgia. All celebrated except for Trump... He says got t5o the Capital and pea
fully let your voices heard.

The difference is that neither Gore nor Hillary held rallies in DC on the
day that the electoral votes were being certified. And let's get real...
Gore was VP so if the VP could *really* do anything to stop the process,
like Trump claimed Pence could, don't you think that VP Gore would have
taken advantage of that ability?

I didn't like what Gore did, and still condemn it, but damn there really is
no comparison to what he did and what happened on January 6th.

My recollection is that Antifa acted out in Atlanta on behalf of Abrams so, yes, you have a point there and I don't "celebrate" her. Anyone who still
does is a moron.

Where did Trump say storm the capital... where did he say I'm not leaving the fice... When did he leave... Where was the Insurrection?? Who had guns??

Trump did indeed threaten not to leave office. What do you think he was telling the crowd, and his twitter followers, when he was telling them that Pence could deliver them the election so he could stay in offce?

He left office because he had to. As for your question of insurrection, if there was not one, why didn't Trump's lawyers argue that? Instead, the
crux of their argument was that "inciting" doesn't mean "engaging in." So
they pretty much admitted that:

(1) something did happen that could be considred an insurrection, and
(2) Trump incited it, but didn't engage in it.

Can you point out a specific law that says "you must have guns" to commit insurrection? I agree that would be handy but am certain you only really
need numbers great enough to overwhelm those that have guns, and some
people dedicated enough they are willing to get shot.

The difference between you and I is that one of us... not me! ... is ok
with certain actions when it is "his guy" that is doing it even if it sets
a dangerous legal precedence, and will double-down harder than a lefty if anyone questions it.

The other one of us is not OK with those kind of actions *no matter who* does them and, when presented with enough evidence, is willing to admit that "his (former) guy" is wrong.


* SLMR 2.1a * Multitasking: When you get the weekend chore list.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 12 Jan 2024, Mike Powell said the following...

Trump did indeed threaten not to leave office. What do you think he was telling the crowd, and his twitter followers, when he was telling them that Pence could deliver them the election so he could stay in offce?

Can you show me this tweet or video??

IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
AKA Joe Schweier
SysOp of 4A 6F 65 73 42 42 53
-=JoesBBS.com=-

... That's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)