Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity
Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity
Former President Trump’s 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 executive&…
Former President Trump’s 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 executive’s 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.
You're viewing a single thread.
They are making this argument, knowing the logical consequences. They are also counting on Biden being an actual human being instead of the steaming pile their client is.
They are also praying to their god that the Appellate Court has no knowledge of the "color of office" argument. Assassinations of US citizens is most definitely beyond the scope of presidential duties, and to accept otherwise is to accept that the president is a king.
I agree completely... that said, not to be that guy, but didn't Obama drone strike one or two American citizens while in power?
He killed four. Three were accidental, one was a literal terrorist helping to plan attacks on American targets. None were on American soil.
I'm undecided if the terrorist one deserves the rights awarded by the fifth amendment, but as for the other three, it's not like he went out of his way to target them.
Trump's lawyers, on the other hand, are essentially arguing that the president can do what he wants to whomever he wants, even on American soil. It's like it's straight from Putin's mouth.
I mean it probably is from Putin’s mouth, only via Trump.
Drone strike on your position, oops did I say that out loud?
To add, would selling pardons not be covered under the emoluments clause, at the very least?
Even though it wasn’t even remotely enforced.
I often wonder if Trump's counsel is undermining him on purpose, or just going with the hand they were played.
They could lose their licenses for undermining their client. It's more likely that it's what it looks like on the tin: incompetence and evil.
I imagine someone might think the sacrifice worth it. To give up your career in order to ostensibly save the Republic?
That is a genuinely nice thought, but there are a few reasons it's very unlikely, and at least one reason it would be the wrong thing to do, even for the right reasons: the same set of actions that would likely result in a loss of license would also likely overturn the results that such sacrifice had sought to bring about.
I like the current plan of Trump being afforded a vigorous defense by the only idiots stupid enough to represent him at this point.
They're trying to delay the trials until after the election hoping he will win and just pardon himself.
And honestly, it's not the Jan 6th Trial they're really worried about - it's the documents case. They have so, so much evidence that he knowingly, intentionally lied about having documents and tried hiding them from the government. There's absolutely no deniability there.
If he loses in November he's toast, and they all know it.
And many of the document crimes occured after he left office. So they don't have even have these bull crap presidential immunity arguments.
"Former presidents are also immune from any prosecution and allowed to carry out assassinations of political rivals after leaving office"
- Trump's lawyers, probably
Well, he was still President when he stole the documents - that's how he got them.
Most of the charges kinda fall apart of it's determined that Presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for anything they do in office. It would make his possession of the documents legal.
But the judges yesterday were clearly annoyed that those arguments were being made in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised to see them censure Trump's attorneys after all this is done.
theft vs possession
I doubt that you could get the argument that current possession of the documents is legal just because having them in the past was legal. A surgeon who possesses cocaine at his house is still going to be in trouble, despite cocaine being legal to have at the surgery table (it's a great tool for eye surgery).
Add on to that the fact that the national archives is the proper owner of the presidential documents once the president is out of office, and that trump lied about having them, lied about returning all of them, etc. etc. etc., and you have crimes that are not related to the actual theft of the documents, but their possession, which are all valid.
But if his theft of the documents was legal, then what's to say he didn't secretly declassify the documents without filing the correct paperwork, which, as President, he was legally allowed to do?
If the Courts rule he was above the law, it gets screwy.
But that's all academic, because there's no way the Court is going to rule that Presidents have blanket immunity from prosecution if they aren't removed from office by a Senate conviction. There's literally nothing in the Constitution remotely suggesting that. In fact, it specifically says that criminal conviction is an entirely separate process from political impeachment, and that an officer can be charged criminally separately from an impeachment.
The argument is so absurd his lawyers should be censured for bringing it to the court.
Trump doesn't pay his lawyers. These are the best lawyers he could get because of it. They aren't undermining him when they're so stupid that they don't realize they're never getting paid because they're working for a guy who is famous for never paying bills.
I just don't understand this. I mean, imagine being a fucking billionaire and under this much heat, and not choosing to pay for the best lawyers money can buy. I know the guy isn't smart, but seriously, is he really that stupid?? Am I missing something?
They’re almost certainly working on retainer. No legal team would be stupid enough to work for him without getting paid up front. Because yeah, the dude is notorious for never paying his debts.
Might as well get the guillotines ready anyway.