Assassination Of Rivals Covered By Presidential Immunity

a reply to: JinMI

He is not in office and his attorneys argued against convicting of impeachment because he could be charged once out of office. So, again, he's not subject to laws according to this most recent argument that he must first be convicted of impeachment before being charged. Or the attorneys are incorrect with an argument somewhere.

originally posted by: frogs453
Eh, I think it's farcical that Trump's impeachment attorneys' argued he shouldn't be convicted because he was subject to criminal prosecution, but now his lawyers argue he has Presidential immunity, oh and in other cases he has immunity because he's a candidate.

So basically Trump is not subject to any law for a myriad of reasons.

You're just following the "go full retard" bandwagon against Trump.

Make a long list of laws for you and yours, and a totally different set of laws for Trump. That's two big mistakes right there since you ignore your own, (the actual laws and freedoms afforded by the constitution and bill of rights), and create false ones for Trump to live by, because you go along and are onboard with the twisting of true law and order.. (The current playbook of the democrat party and the left that follows).

a reply to: frogs453

He is not in office and his attorneys argued against convicting of impeachment because he could be charged once out of office.

And? Does the court have a say in impeachment proceedings?

o, again, he's not subject to laws according to this most recent argument that he must first be convicted of impeachment before being charged.

I agree with that. Caveat being subject to laws while in office.

Hey, I get it. No matter what, you believe he cannot be charged. His attorneys in the impeachment proceeding argued that he can without a conviction. His new attorneys state he cannot without a conviction. Guess we will see what the appeals court rules.

a reply to: frogs453

Hey, I get it. No matter what, you believe he cannot be charged.

Sure...k

Caveat being subject to laws while in office.

*While in office.

Pretty sure there's a qualifier mentioned a time...or two.

But think what you will, facts and logic don't seem to factor into your critical thinking for some reason.

a reply to: JinMI

Interesting claim. I'll agree to my critical thinking skills if the court rules he has immunity. I'm sure you'll do the same if the court rules he does not.

a reply to: frogs453

A court decision will not sway my opinion. I'll explain why.


If we are allowed to charge ex presidents with crimes while in office sans an impeachment then ALL ex presidents and every president going forward are up for charges.

No matter the reason or motivation......

Yet even with that aside it means that every administration going forward can freely and openly persecute who they replaced. Not only is it a meltdown of all three branches of gov't it's also putting branches of gov't above another.

See how I can articulate my position rather than appealing to authority? Now I can be wrong but I won't be wrong because I didn't think this through.

a reply to: JinMI

So you believe if a President commits a crime that is not part of an official act, however he is not convicted of impeachment then he can never be charged for his crimes. However his attorneys in the impeachment that he raved were the most excellent attorneys stated that he did not need to be convicted as he could be charged later. And his attorney said "We have a judicial process in this country. We have an investigative process in this country to which no former office holder is immune."

The argument regarding his crime is that it was not an official act. Working with those outside of his administration to cook up a scheme to interfere with the transfer of power and overturn the election.

And considering the fact that he was not President when the crimes came to light, they what, now have to bring him back for impeachment and then charge him?

a reply to: frogs453

So you believe if a President commits a crime that is not part of an official act, however he is not convicted of impeachment then he can never be charged for his crimes.

You'd have to make the argument that something a POTUS does while in office isn't an official act. Even if there is some crossover, say as you describe, and I argue that a transparent and legitimate election is within his purview as chief executive, it's going to be pretty complicated.

And once again, I don't care what Trumps attorneys are arguing.

And considering the fact that he was not President when the crimes came to light, they what, now have to bring him back for impeachment and then charge him?

Yes. Otherwise there is a severance of equal powers.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: network dude

There are penalties for following unlawful orders, BUT...

while I was obviously never a tier1 operator in general the military no longer beats that unlawful order thing into the troops heads.

I joined in '97 law of armed conflict and what happened to the germans that were just "following orders" was a multi day class.

before I got out after 24 years, I tried teaching some of the new blood that you can ignore an unlawful order but you better know the regs if your going to do it.

They looked at me like I had grown a third eye in my forhead. Anecdotal I know but its what I saw the amount of people that would tell the big boss to pound sand is shrinking.

I went through basic in 90, so I hear you. Had a kid in Army and one in USAF. My son told me in Lackalnd, they weren't allowed to swear at them. I had the stupidest look on my face when he said that. All I can say now, is get off my lawn.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: frogs453
Eh, I think it's farcical that Trump's impeachment attorneys' argued he shouldn't be convicted because he was subject to criminal prosecution, but now his lawyers argue he has Presidential immunity, oh and in other cases he has immunity because he's a candidate.

So basically Trump is not subject to any law for a myriad of reasons.

You're just following the "go full retard" bandwagon against Trump.

Make a long list of laws for you and yours, and a totally different set of laws for Trump. That's two big mistakes right there since you ignore your own, (the actual laws and freedoms afforded by the constitution and bill of rights), and create false ones for Trump to live by, because you go along and are onboard with the twisting of true law and order.. (The current playbook of the democrat party and the left that follows).

Except that it still would be farcical if you had a point there. And framing a reasonable argument the way you just did would be on the playbook of the rightwing and it's followers?

Everyone (you would think) knows that the immunity is with respect to actions in the official capacity of the president. That doesn't mean he can deal drugs, or buy hookers, or generally break laws that have nothing to do with his official capacity of the president.

His lawyers know this, and when cornered with the question, responded to a technical question. There could be some scenario where almost any normal crime could fall in the official capacity of the president. It would be a very specific scenario that involved a political opponent getting taken out by a SEAL Team, but not impossible.

...and that's what lawyers do. They look at things from a purely technical stance.

Even you as an ordinary Joe can be immune from prosecution for taking a life in certain circumstances.

The president, just as police have far more leeway, gets a very broad free pass so that every former president isn't prosecuted by random citizen groups who hated him for every action they didn't like. Imagine if Biden was prosecuted criminally for the millions of Covid deaths for balking at closing the travel from China, or mandating the vax, or every president was prosecuted for any quid pro quo, or forced coercion through federal funds.

Stop being a clown and understand the context. Anyone who thinks this is Trump saying he can kill his political rival, is just disingenuous or daft as can be.

a reply to: Halfswede

Stop being a clown and understand the context. Anyone who thinks this is Trump saying he can kill his political rival, is just disingenuous or daft as can be.

We could also believe none of this actually matters, and maybe that is the political reality we deserved. However, why wouldn't you think a good lynching would be in order when you actually feel to be the victim of a witch-hunt?

That's revenge served cold right there, and there's nothing daft or disingenuous about that. Is it?

Not sure what riled Trump up at 2am, but he was ranting about Presidential immunity even if it "crosses the line" as a "mistake", apparently into criminality.

A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION. ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENDED, WOULD BE MET WITH ALMOST CERTAIN INDICTMENT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT TERM END. EVEN EVENTS THAT “CROSS THE LINE” MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD. THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY. EXAMPLE: YOU CAN’T STOP POLICE FROM DOING THE JOB OF STRONG & EFFECTIVE CRIME PREVENTION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GUARD AGAINST THE OCCASIONAL “ROGUE COP” OR “BAD APPLE.” SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH “GREAT BUT SLIGHTLY IMPERFECT.” ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, OR THE AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE AN EASY DECISION. GOD BLESS THE SUPREME COURT!

With the above cop analogy; I will say they should hold the "rogue" cop accountable, and have procedures in place for him to be held accountable. How can a police force be effective if you have one cop out there just committing crimes with impunity? No one is talking about changing the whole Presidential office, however how can we allow a President to commit what would be crime that is outside the scope of official duties? Any President of any party.

Truth Social-Donald Trump

So, as it relates to him, yes he should be accountable.

a reply to: frogs453

A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION.

In other words, the president of the united states has to break the law, in order to do the job. Some thing about that doesn't seem right.

a reply to: Unknownparadox

In other words, the president of the united states has to break the law, in order to do the job. Some thing about that doesn't seem right.

Can we get a bit of TDS analytics to dismay this new member with a mean agenda, please?