Trump lawyer tells appeals court president can murder political rivals without being prosecuted — unless impeached and convicted by Senate
Trump lawyer tells appeals court president can murder political rivals without being prosecuted — unless impeached and convicted by Senate
Appearing in appeals court against special counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday, Donald Trump argued he was 'presidentially' immune from criminal charges alleging he conspired to subvert the 2020 election.
The stark question was posed to Trump’s attorney John Sauer by Judge Florence Pan: Was a president immune from prosecution for any unlawful act, at all? Could a president order his political rivals to be assassinated by Seal Team 6 as an official act? Could he sell pardons at his pleasure if he saw fit and then face no consequences for his actions?
“He would have to be impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied,
How on EARTH did the judge miss his chance to ask the obvious follow-up.
"Does this apply to Biden also? Can he murder his political rivals under your legal theory? Can he murder your client?"
"Why not?"
The judge definitely called out Trump's lawyer tho
Judge Henderson cited this specifically on Tuesday when hearing arguments from Sauer.
Trump, she told him, said he couldn’t be prosecuted while he was in office, but he also conceded that he could be prosecuted once he was out.
Logic doesn't work with trumpets tho, they just say whatever happens to help them the most in the moment.
Here pretty soon they'll start saying it's too close to the election, so this has to be postponed.
If he wins, they'll say it has to wait till after, then they'll start over in the beginning.
trumps lawyers are just going to stall as long as they can.
Well the real answer is because this isn't about Biden and bringing a whataboutism into court would be incredibly unprofessional of a judge. That's something one of Trump's idiot appointees would say and we would all be wondering how the case isn't being thrown out for unprofessional commentary
Whataboutism is shifting focus away from something person A did, by bringing some action by person B into it when it doesn't belong.
Asking how a legal theory would apply in some other context, to highlight the absurdity of what the lawyer is saying because the answer would be absurd, is a very different thing.
I can see maybe saying it without the word "Biden" but focusing it on Trump would be better, yeah. E.g. asking if some other president would be allowed to murder his political rivals (specifically including Trump), without opening to door to complications. Obviously the answer is that Trump thinks he should have a special set of rules that don't apply to anyone else, but the closer you can get to forcing his lawyer to explain out loud that that's what they're asking for seems like it'd be a good thing.
Well the real real answer is the judge actually asked something in that same vein.
Could a president order his political rivals to be assassinated by Seal Team 6 as an official act?
It's not a whataboutism when you're questioning the legal precedent a certain ruling would set.
Whataboutism: when you ask if your assertion of rights also applies to other people.
Whataboutism is Russian propaganda. These are legal arguments.
I saw it more as pointing out how the claim fails by Proof of Contradiction
Oh wow, what a big fucking surprise. Trump's team is now arguing he can't be charged because he wasn't impeached. Yet 4 years ago, the cowards in the GOP said they couldn't impeach him and it was up to the courts to take responsibility for punishing Trump.
Who could have guessed that these slimy fucks would do that? Everyone?
Also, if the court sides with Trump, and he gets impeached again, the GOP will use the exact same excuse and ignore this ruling entirely and not convict.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, this idea would basically posit that all the president must do to become a dictator is take out the whole Senate at once, or just have absolute loyalists in enough of the seats, or a combination of the two. If there's no Senate, the president can't be impeached and convicted, and if the president cant be held accountable for anything unless that happens, then they can illegally stop any new elections to get new senators with no consequences (or a new president for that matter) and act with impunity.
Taken to it’s logical conclusion, this idea would basically posit that all the president must do to become a dictator is take out the whole Senate at once, or just have absolute loyalists in enough of the seats, or a combination of the two
Didn't they sorta try that 3 years ago? Shouldn't that be a huge red flag for this argment?
Didn’t they sorta try that 3 years ago?
No, they tried to take out the House of Representatives. It's clearly a totally different thing. \s
Murders all the way down.
Hmm sounds like the whole "balance of power in the 3 branches of government" is being completely ignored by this dumb lawyer.
The executive branch must be held accountable by more than just the Senate... Otherwise there might as well only be 2 branches of power and the justice system would fall under the umbrella of the executive branch.
It's also being ignored by SCOTUS, so... Doesn't seem the government cares about corruption what so ever.
Then go on Biden. Do your thing Mr. King.
This is basically trump arguing for the return of the Divine Right of Kings
We have a speaker of the house that said he was ordained by God to be Moses for Republicans sooo I guess you're not too far off
What kind of trash lawyer is this lmao. He got served a bait question and took it.
Yeah because that's the sign of a healthy democracy... Red flag #47653.
If he has to be impeached and convicted by the Senate then his lawyers would argue that he can't be prosecuted afterward because of the double jeopardy clause. This would completely nullify the constitution and the United States of America would cease to exist as we know it. That's the Republican endgame.
Putting aside the whole Republican duplicity thing, I don't think this is double jeopardy.
Impeachment is, in essence, a political procedure to remove someone from office. There doesn't need to even be a crime (see Biden's impeachment for an example).
So assuming for a moment that a president was impeached, that trial is to remove him from office, not to try him for a crime.
And even then, impeachment trials are civil where there is no jeopardy.
My point is not about the merits of the argument
I look forward to how SCOTUS Bush v Gore'ing this, granting Trump immunity, and saying "this is not a precedent".
Sounds like watering time to me. The tree of liberty is half dead.
Not the flex they think it is...
Is this the lawyers way of saying "please kill my client Mr president".