Pressed in court, Trump’s lawyers made an argument that would destroy nearly all limitations on presidential power.
…
In a hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court, the former president’s lawyers argued that he should be immune from criminal prosecution for his role in the attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election. This argument has an obvious flaw: It implies that the president is above the law. Such a blunt rejection of the Constitution and the basic concept of American democracy is too much even for Trump to assert—publicly, at least—so his lawyers have proposed a theory. They say that he can’t be criminally prosecuted unless he is first impeached and convicted by Congress.
This argument is no less dangerous, as a hypothetical asked in court demonstrated in chilling terms. Judge Florence Pan asked Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, if “a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” could be criminally prosecuted. Sauer tried to hem and haw his way through an answer but ultimately stated that such a president couldn’t be prosecuted unless he was first impeached, convicted, and removed by Congress.
“But if he weren’t, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?” Pan pressed. Sauer had no choice but to agree, because acknowledging any exceptions would have blown a hole in his argument.
…
What lawyers say in court is not the same as what politicians say or will do in office, but no normal politician would allow such an argument to be made on his behalf, especially while sitting in the courtroom. Trump did because his mentality is victory at all costs—winning the present legal case, but also anything else. Trump has already made clear that he wishes to punish his political opponents, and once he discovers the possibility of some power, he is seldom able to resist trying it. Today’s legal argument could very well be next year’s exercise of presidential power.
You must log in or register to comment.
Biden could order the military to kill all Republican members of Congress as well as any democrats who would support his impeachment for doing so. He could order the execution of all of their replacements as well. He could even order the execution of governors who appoint congresspeople who don’t support his agenda, and the voters who voted for them.
I’m sure this is exactly what the authors of the constitution intended.
You know. Like a king. The framers were pretty big on that kind of thing.
I mean… didn’t they (the founders) like repeatedly ask Washington to be King or President for life at least. It was only because Washington was basically burnt out that he did two terms and those technical limits stuck around until FDR went a bit over it…
I don’t think the framers did. A few at least were leery of a transition of power happening at all. Some figured that a revolution would be necessary frequently. But some members of Congress and some prominent figures at the time were asking Washington to stay. I don’t know if anyone officially wanted him to stay until he died but they wanted longer. I assume they didn’t have much faith in democracy working well enough.
This is why using ‘the Founders’ as some sort of blanket label doesn’t work. There were wildly differing opinions on just about everything, including what the official language should be.
Jefferson agrees with you. In one of his letters to Madison he argued that a “generation” was about 19 years and that a new constitution should be written about that time period. His quote was summoned as “I’m afraid that we’ve tied the men of the future to the men of the past.” Which is rather telling that the guy responsible for the document itself that we still hold up had those ideas 200+ years ago. He knew the framework that was laid out shouldn’t be permanent and that it was flawed no matter what.
They’re wildly complex people, and if you just simply read one document on them they sound either terrible or amazing, but the truth was much more complex. For me, Thomas Jefferson was ahead of his time and knew how history would look back on them. They weren’t ignorant just from a different era.
There weren’t any real term limits until FDR, though I don’t think there was a need for them prior to him. There may still not be any real reason for it except that his opponents in Congress became sad that the people liked him.
Hilariously, there are very few actual monarchs with that sort of power. They all abused it until the people revolted. These yahoos are trying to create a type of monarchy that even monarchists would never accept.
They created a system of labor even serfs would never accept, so they may not be wrong in thinking they can do it.
Medicine and technology questions aside, serfs probably lived better than we do based solely on the number of hours required to work in order to survive.
Historians say they typically got somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the year off work. Not the only metric in the world but damn that’s a stark difference especially if you’re an American.
Imagine conservatives if Hunter was the heir to the throne in the US.
In the DC case Trump’s lawyers are arguing that he can’t be criminally charged unless he’s impeached and removed first.
In the Georgia case, Trump’s lawyers are claiming that he can’t be charged because he was already impeached for that action and that’s double jeopardy.
Ignore for the second that the Georgia crime is not what he was impeached for. Trump’s lawyers are arguing that you can’t charge a President unless you impeach him, but also impeaching him means that you can’t charge the President.
This is how Trump always operates. He’s used similar strategies in other cases.
Its just amazing to watch
Doublethink is always required to be a conservative. It’s part of why they are so miserable.
deleted by creator
If for some insane chance that this wins in court, it seems it is both wabbit season, duck season, and Elmer season before Biden leaves office. No? Not like that? I’m just so tired of giving stupid/evil people a platform.
We all know Republicans would immediately start arguing for the highest levels of accountability if a Democrat did anything criminal.
Biden loans his son money and his son pays it back. Republicans: “THIS IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE AND BIDEN SHOULD BE IMPRISONED FOR LIFE!!!”
Trump literally advocates for assassinating his political rivals in the same week that he appears in Epstein’s fight logs. Republicans: “Trump was obviously sent from God to lead us and should be able to do whatever he wants with absolute immunity! Including killing anyone he wants dead!!! MAGA!”
yep, and this is one of the arguments that bothers me the most. I’ve had numerous discussions with republicans that go something along the lines of “well both sides do it” or “it’s only because a republican did it” and that drives me up a wall. It’s like i don’t hate political assholes that do stupid stuff because they’re republican. I just hate political assholes who do stupid stuff… democrat or republican i don’t care. If there’s proof that they did stupid illegal crap, they should all be punished. i don’t get why this is difficult to grasp lol.
Right. For example, the Epstein fight logs show Bill Clinton and Donald Trump on the plane. If there’s evidence that either one did illegal stuff, I say imprison both of them. (I’d call the flight logs suspicious activity enough to open an investigation, but by itself not enough proof to result in a criminal conviction.)
Did I like Bill Clinton as a politician? In general, yes. There was plenty of stuff that I didn’t like about him, but I voted for him for his second term. (I was too young for his first term, but would have voted for him if I was older.) Still, my general feeling that he was a decent President doesn’t mean I think he should get away with criminal activities.
Yet, there are so many Republicans that literally don’t care what Trump has done. A video could come out definitively proving that Trump had sex with underage girls and even if his supporters accepted it as true, they’d still support him. The modern Republican party is a cult and it’s scary.
arguing for the highest levels of accountability if a Democrat did anything criminal.
Way more accountability. They want Democrats held accountable for things Republicans do - it’s a projection thing they have.
… and at this point, the individual stupid evil people are not all to blame. It’s the following of people, prominent people, professionals, wealthy backers and politicians that are all lining up to support one less than reputable person to push their agenda.
Trump is the tip of a huge ice berg of fascist idiots that really really want to have an unaccountable supreme leader to take full control of everything.
Just for a taste of how fucked their beliefs are, the magat I asked, said, “Biden doesn’t have this power because he’d not the real president.”
Can’t be prosecuted unless Congress acts first? Detain Congress before they can act. Easy peasy, dictator for life.
Or, apparently, kill everyone in congress that disagrees and would vote to impeach. If presidential immunity is absolute that would be a legit strategy.
Yes, that’s as fucking insane as it sounds.
deleted by creator
Worked for Elizabeth I.
Very fucking interesting.
Should be pretty fucking loud and clear to every Drumf supporter out there who he is and what he wants to do to your god damn country.
Anyone who doesn’t get this at this point is willingly doing so and is an active threat to democracy and the American dream.
Smart people never crashed a country before, but selfish, hateful people and policies do.
Should be pretty fucking loud and clear to every Drumf supporter out there who he is and what he wants to do to your god damn country.
Thing is, the already know, and not only do they not care, it’s what they like about him. They WANT him to do it.
Because they assume he’ll only hurt “the right people” (meaning people on the left). The second it hurts them, they’ll act shocked that the leopard that campaigned on eating everyone’s faces would actually eat THEIR face!
always worth dropping this where it’s relevant
First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me
They don’t care and/or they’re cheering this on. Most of his supporters are either on a holy crusade and see Trump as God’s anointed or they see politics and this country as a game they must win at all costs. As long as he continues to hurt the right people, neither group will give a shit.
I have to have hope that there are some out there, and maybe even many, feel this way solely because they’ve been isolated with that group and are stockholmed.
I refuse to give up hope that anyone can at any point turn back. You can always turn back.
If Trump somehow wins this case, Biden should just wait til the presidential debates and order Secret Service to break Trump’s knees live on stage.
It sure would be a shame if Trump’s knees just gave out on stage…
I’d actually watch that.
deleted by creator
Here’s an archive.today link.
This would be an awful fucking precedent. But I’d love to quicksave and then give Biden carte blanche to clean house of certain senators, house members, and supreme court justices. Just to watch the chaos and carnage.
Setting precedent so that when he lines his opponents up on Pennsylvania Avenue and executes them, he can point to this case and go “see?”
Can someone with a law background chime in on this?
Is the president also a citizen and must obey the same laws or is this the same horseshit corporations get away with?
Well, you wouldn’t want just anyone with a law background to chime in. You’d want someone with specific knowledge of constitutional law. I’m not a lawyer at all, so take what I’m saying with a grain of salt. My understanding of the argument is this:
There is a process for convicting a president of the USA. That process was followed, and this president was not found guilty (he was impeached, but the senate ultimately prevented him from going to trial). Since the alleged crime happened during his presidency, and he wasn’t tried, this DC Circuit court simply does not have the authority to send him to trial.
I have no idea where the judges are gonna land on this one, but it seems like whatever the decision is, it will have an impact on future presidents.
Hey man, how you gonna discredit yourself before posting. You’re likely right.
