- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
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 must log in or register to comment.
I mean…bet.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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 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.
Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media at a Washington hotel, Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2024, after attending a hearing before the D.C.
Judge Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, noted that a president could resign rather than face impeachment, something that under the framework of Trump’s attorneys would allow them to dodge future prosecution.
James Pearce, a lawyer with Smith’s office, forcefully pushed back against the notion that mechanisms to hold presidents accountable for criminal actions should be weakened.
“What kind of world are we living in … if a president orders his SEAL team to murder a political rival and then resigns or is not impeached — that is not a crime?
The original article contains 410 words, the summary contains 181 words. Saved 56%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Sauer later argued the threat of prosecution could have a chilling effect on future presidents’ decisions, saying they would need to look over their shoulder and ask, “Am I going to jail for this?” when making controversial decisions.
That’s exactly the fucking point, you chode! The president should be weighing that consequence.
Reminds me of this:
My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number [to launch a nuclear weapon] in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, “George, I’m sorry but tens of millions must die.” He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It’s reality brought home.
When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, “My God, that’s terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President’s judgment. He might never push the button.”
— Roger Fisher, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1981
Please be the onion
I’m sure they’ll argue it’s in the constitution
A week ago, we were half jokingly saying that if their arguments were valid, Biden could straight up shoot Trump at the first debate, say “Presidential Immunity, fucker”, and walk off the stage. The judge then asks a Trump lawyer about a similar hypothetical, and the idiot actually says yeah, that’s fine.
So do the secret service for Biden have to follow up on this? This idiot confuses me.
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.
The scary part of all these kinds of arguments are that if they were somehow successful and got a court to uphold this as valid/law, imagine the next sweet talking purely evil piece of shit having power cart blanch, anything goes. These “religious” assholes alone could probably think of stuff that would make Hitler blush.
Yeah. There’s a reason most of the world rebelled and moved away from monarchies and other totalitarian governments.
