Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
They literally don't know the difference between presidents and kings
To be fair, the supreme court has made the same argument when granting themselves absolute immunity. But it was just as stupid then (and still theoretically only applies when executing their job).
"We could never do anything if we had to worry about lawsuits all the time" yes, that's how life works for everyone who makes decisions.
I saw that line, buried at the end of the article, and shouted at the screen, "Yeah, you fuckin' should!" I want to live in the world where the president is terrified of the consequences of his or her actions.
I want to live in a world where every cop, lawyer and CEO also lives with that same fear.
Trump argue Biden should assassinate him
Congress would impeach Biden SO FAST so he could then be prosecuted.
... Unless Biden also made it impossible for Congress to meet to impeach him. Which is obviously against the Constitution, but there's nothing to be done about it as long as Congress can't impeach him.
Checkmate, fascists.
... wait
No, see if Biden wants to be impeachment proof, he just needs to arrange for a "group trip" for all Congressional Republicans to "a nice farm upstate." He can be generous and include tickets for the conservative Supreme Court justices.
Biden would never do this and I wouldn't want him to, but Trump is arguing that this would be 100% legal.
I mean… not that I or anyone should advocate for something like that, but honestly… if Trump openly states that he wants to do this to anyone he deems as an enemy… well… Trump isn’t currently in power… and so anyone who currently HAS power would be a fucking moron not to try and strike first knowing Trump WILL have them killed.
I mean, we are not talking about a game of checkers, people.
We’re talking about actual fucking dipshit fascists who will gleefully damn us all in the ever-accelerating climatological extinction we face in the coming next couple of decades.
Fascists will happily kill every man woman and child, whether they be those who would cure cancer, create cold fusion, or build room-temperature super conductors - if they ever showed disloyalty to the fascists’ despotic whims.
This “we go high when they go low” performative bullshit is a losing game if the other game participants are the only players willing to always go low.
Also if assassination of a political rival is legal unless the congress votes to impeach, what prevents the president from also assassinating a few congressmen in order to not get impeached ?
what prevents the president from also assassinating a few congressmen in order to not get impeached
That's the plan. Assassinate ALL rivals and all threats. It's just a step up from suing people for him.
Yep. All his political rivals. What an insane thing to say when you aren't president.
So either Trump wins here and gets assassinated or he loses and has to stand trial lol
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 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.
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 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.
Might as well get the guillotines ready anyway.
Okay, Joe. You know what to do.
Biden: If the Supreme Court agrees, take the shot.
Ask him if that means Biden can assassinate Trump. Then remind him of the concept of estoppel. Then Biden comes to their first presidential debate and places a .44 Magnum handgun on the podium, to see if Trump runs away like the little bitch he is.
“If Biden weren’t so weak, he’d assassinate me” is what he’s saying.
.44 Magnum? Wouldn't a flame thrower be a bit more appropriate?
I have nothing else to say to this man. This is one of those times where all the people outright calling him a Nazi were 100% correct.
Now I'm worried that he's gonna turn the Navy SEALs into the modern day Gestapo.
The SEALs won't put up with that shit. They have the same ability to tell their CO, "nope, that's an unlawful order," that the Nukes do. Difference is that the CO isn't gonna try to force the SEAL to do shit.
Unless im mistaken every US soldier not only has the ability but the duty to refuse unlawful orders. 'Just following orders' is not acceptable in reducing any amount of personal fault iirc.
Every alarm is going off, people. They are telling everyone exactly what they intend to do.
A bold claim for the obnoxious rival of the president, but okay bet.
Right. This is seriously the only thing I thought of.
Like you are arguing it's ok for the sitting president to murder his opponent.
You are not the sitting president. You are the current opponent.
Seems like a fucking weird taunt.
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.
He argues so much strength from a position of exceptional weakness. Well done
This is literally a Satan v. Goliath story
He'll go on record saying it was "just a joke" and all his smug braindead followers will claim his sense of humor is too refined for us to understand properly. This really is the timeline where Biff Tannen won...
And then about 4 days later, he /will be assassinated/, and then all the chuds will switch to 'We were joking about joking about it, moron!', just as we have watched essentially the vast majority of chuds essentially joke about Nazis so hard, for so long, that they simply became them.
I hate this idiots, for one they have no concept of humor or what being funny entails, for two, uh, they are Nazis.
But somehow charging trump is election interference 🙄
Oh man, I hope he thinks he can assassinate Biden and then claim since the election was faked he's been president all along and then trot out this immunity crap. Course he couldn't run for president again, then, so he'll have to declare himself president for life, and all the republicans will cheer, cheer, cheer because they won democracy.
Please be the onion
The first thing I thought was, welp let's just kill this pos and see if it's true that the King(since we are heading that way) is immune from prosecution.
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.
Remember when the maga clowns' favourite insult for Obama was "King Obama" because of some perceived presidential overreach issues? If they had any moral integrity, pointing out these double standards would make them think.
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!
