- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival be prosecuted?
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:39 pm
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12942823/trump-election-fraud-case-jack-smith-washington-dc.html
quote:
Donald Trump's lawyers argued on Tuesday that presidents can't be criminally prosecuted for ordering the assassination of their rivals unless they were impeached first.
The former president's attorneys made the stunning claim in a Washington D.C. Appeals Court while insisting he should be immune from prosecution in election fraud cases.
Trump's legal team argued that he was acting officially as president when he challenged the 2020 results and Special Counsel Jack Smith's federal charges should be dropped.
In a dramatic exchange during the 90-minute hearing, Judge Florence Pan asked his lawyer: ‘A yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, be subject to a criminal prosecution?'
Trump lawyer John Sauer responded: 'If he were impeached and convicted first.'
'So your answer is no,’ shot back Pan.
'My answer is qualified yes...you'd expect a speedy impeachment and conviction,’ Sauer said.
27
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:41 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
In a dramatic exchange during the 90-minute hearing, Judge Florence Pan asked his lawyer: ‘A yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, be subject to a criminal prosecution?' Trump lawyer John Sauer responded: 'If he were impeached and convicted first.' 'So your answer is no,’ shot back Pan. 'My answer is qualified yes...you'd expect a speedy impeachment and conviction,’ Sauer said.
Woof.
Team Trump’s legal arguments about impeachment in these cases are just awful. This take may be even worse than the double jeopardy one.
This post was edited on 1/9/24 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:41 pm to Mickey Goldmill
It’s an interesting legal argument. A President that did what you posed would certainly be impeached, so the question is likely moot.
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:44 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Another dumb thread by Micky. What a surprise 
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:45 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Team Trump’s legal arguments about impeachment in these cases are just awful.
What makes you say this? I have only a very surface level understanding, but from what I have heard it’s actually a pretty interesting legal argument.
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:47 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
In a dramatic exchange during the 90-minute hearing, Judge Florence Pan asked his lawyer: ‘A yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, be subject to a criminal prosecution?'
this right here, is the dems projecting their plans to kill trump since they cant stop him any other way
quote:
Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:47 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
What makes you say this?
The fact that impeachment is nothing but a political action.
Now—if they argued that POTUS is immune from criminal prosecution while in office—that would be interesting and an unanswered question.
But arguing that impeachment proceedings themselves are a necessary prerequisite for criminal charges unrelated to POTUS’s official duties is just….silly.
Eta: I still think the “impeachment = double jeopardy” argument is worse though.
This post was edited on 1/9/24 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:47 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Pan was the replacement for the judge that can’t define a woman.
Biden appointment. This isn’t going to go well.
Biden appointment. This isn’t going to go well.
This post was edited on 1/9/24 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:48 pm to ChexMix
Mickey’s posting frequency is directly in proportion to the success of Democratic ideas and policy.
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:49 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Now—if their argued that POTUS is immune from criminal prosecution while in office—that would be interesting and an unanswered question.
I think what they are saying is that the impeachment would remove the President from office and then he can be prosecuted. Nobody has unlimited immunity, but the process to pierce immunity is a fascinating legal argument. I’m not sure the argument being made is as bad as you think.
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:49 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
In a dramatic exchange during the 90-minute hearing, Judge Florence Pan asked his lawyer: ‘A yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, be subject to a criminal prosecution?'
Trump lawyer John Sauer responded: 'If he were impeached and convicted first.'
'So your answer is no,’ shot back Pan.
'My answer is qualified yes...you'd expect a speedy impeachment and conviction,’ Sauer said.
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:50 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I’m not sure the argument being made is as bad as you think.
I was only going off what was quoted in the OP.
The lawyers response to the question was not good.
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:51 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
What makes you say this? I have only a very surface level understanding, but from what I have heard it’s actually a pretty interesting legal argument
There is nothing in the Constitution that links the 2 concepts, and there is language separating the 2 concepts.
If there was language stating that a criminal conviction could eliminate eligibility to be President, I think the argument would be stronger. Otherwise, they're 2 very different spheres.
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:52 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I was only going off what was quoted in the OP. The lawyers response to the question was not good.
Fair enough. And I get what the DOJ is doing. Bringing up the absurd scenarios a blanket ruling like what they are arguing could lead to. It’s a common tactic.
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:54 pm to BBONDS25
The judge brought up seal team six.
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:54 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Tell us you're voting for Pedo-Biden again without telling us you're voting for Pedo-Biden again....
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In a dramatic exchange during the 90-minute hearing, Judge Florence Pan asked his lawyer: ‘A yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, be subject to a criminal prosecution?
This makes for good theater. But it’s not really the way cases work. The judge is assuming the president is guilty in a case and our system is based upon a presumption of innocence.
Could a President be indicted on any random criminal charge? If not, what’s the cutoff?
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:55 pm to roadGator
quote:
The judge brought up seal team six.
Doesn’t surprise me. Appointed by Biden and replaced Ketanji Brown Jackson.
This post was edited on 1/9/24 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 1/9/24 at 12:56 pm to the808bass
Everyone knows Presidents would just use the FBI
Page 1 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News