- 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
re: Trump’s Boldest Argument Yet: Immunity From Prosecution for Assassinations
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:03 am to Obtuse1
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:03 am to Obtuse1
quote:
I think this is an interesting argument when combined with his former attorneys arguing he could not be impeached once leaving office. This one leave a situation where a president could poison his SOS a minute before his term needed and be immune from any prosecution.
Couldn’t an argument be made tat you could easily charge a president with a fake crime for simply not liking him?
And you wouldn’t need impeachment to do so.
And in today’s world that is how you poison or assassinate someone.
Kind of like what they are doing now to Trump.
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 6:04 am
1
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:05 am to SEC. 593
quote:
Reading the unbolded clause there to me is key because that is one sentence in full. The bolded (imo) is stating that the impeachment trial is not the full extent of the legal process and only serves as the conduit of removal from office
"But the party CONVICTED"
Impeachment = Indictment by House (essentially, a grand jury)
The Senate conducts the trial and CONVICTS (or acquits).
Thus, only after that process does the person impeached become "the party convicted" and only at that point are they subject to the other processes.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:11 am to Obtuse1
quote:
I will make the argument that the framers never did this anywhere else in the Constitution and it would be an anathema to them.
They had to because nowhere else in the Constitution is there a President that has to make incredibly tough decisions, sometimes including who lives and who dies.
A person with that authority is going to have to be able to piss off a lot of people with a fairly free hand. Otherwise the job can't be done.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:26 am to dgnx6
quote:
Couldn’t an argument be made tat you could easily charge any citizen with a fake crime for simply not liking him?
FIFY
We could both be charged with spurious crimes by COB today. That is the reason there is a cornucopia of checks and balances. That doesn't mean thousands upon thousands of people haven't been wrongfully accused and convicted in this country since its founding.
None of that is here nor there vis-a-vis my opinion ITT. I am not arguing about whether or not Trump is being charged because people don't like him. I am arguing about the application of a specific clause of the Constitution and how it applies to the case at bar. The clause clearly (IMO) was crafted to prevent the removal of the judicial branch check and I see no way to read it to show it meant to remove that check.
Keep in mind I am arguing about what is and have no interest in arguing what should be in a case where I think the constitutional language is clear. That is an argument best left to philosophers and more erudite thinkers.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:30 am to Obtuse1
quote:
FIFY We could both be charged with spurious crimes by COB today. That is the reason there is a cornucopia of checks and balances. That doesn't mean thousands upon thousands of people haven't been wrongfully accused and convicted in this country since its founding.
I’m not the president. Me being in jail over trumped up charges is diff than the sitting president.
And try to think about this in terms of any other president, not Trump.
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 7:17 am
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:33 am to olddawginCa
quote:
If Trump or any President actually called for the assassination of a political rival, they would be impeached faster than you could say, "Richard Nixon".
You mean a domestic political rival.
We've called for the assassination of foreign political rivals probably dozens of times. How many times did we try to kill Fidel Castro? The POTUS had to know about all of that.
But here's the problem. I'm not sure if a Democrat was caught putting out a hit on a Republican and they had the numbers in Congress, I'm not at all sure that a Democratic POTUS would be impeached for that. That's how wantonly and ruthlessly lawless they have become.
The basic premise of what Trump's lawyers are arguing is valid IMO. IMO our separation of powers exists and was set up to cover this, and the way it was arranged was that Congress would do its job by impeaching and the the DOJ would take over from there.
The problem is that Congress doesn't do its job anymore.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:34 am to Eurocat
quote:
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” he said. “It’s, like, incredible.”
It was a stupid comment but he was and is maybe even more so now, correct.
This whole thing is a dog and pony show. Democrats know they have no case but they are using this spectile to likely write legislation to attack the process and weaken the laws to allow them to more easily jail and impression their political rivals in the future.
Don't lose sight of the fact that EVERYTHING the democrats do is designed "purposefully" to get the exact opposite result of what they call it and/or sell it to the public as being designed to do.
So when they say "preserve Democracy" you can bet your hairy arse what will happen is the destruction of Democracy.
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 6:35 am
Posted on 1/11/24 at 6:36 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
We've called for the assassination of foreign political rivals probably dozens of times.
Obama literally sent Seal team 6 to kill a political rival, Bin Laden.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 7:14 am to dgnx6
quote:
I’m not the president. Me being in jail over trumped up charges is diff than the sitting president.
Trump ain't sitting which is the entire reason we are here.
To your point, I do not think your rights are any less precious than a former president's. The president is afforded certain priveledges you are not which is the entire genesis of us being here.
Trump is arguing he has blanket immunity and that the failure of the legislative branch to effect their check on the executive branch's power leaves the judicial branch's check null. While the idea of blanket immunity is the darling of the mind of almost every Whitehouse council I think the idea it was the Founder's intent is laughable. That would be essentially the equal of divine right of a king/queen and if the history I was taught is remotely accurate the Founder's weren't really high on monarchies. Again as for as removing the judicial branch's check I see nothing in the language of the clause that indicates that was remotely their intent, it actually is designed to preserve the separate judicial check.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 7:17 am to Obtuse1
You don’t think the founders considered the chilling effect of an absence of immunity?
Posted on 1/11/24 at 7:18 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Trump ain't sitting which is the entire reason we are here. To your point, I do not think your rights are any less precious than a former president's. The president is afforded certain priveledges you are not which is the entire genesis of us being here.
Nah, arresting bush during 911 is diff than me getting arrested for dui during that same time.
It just is. Don’t be obtuse.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 7:18 am to thebigmuffaletta
quote:
It’s absurd you people think a podunk prosecutor can indict the president, have him hauled into court, and imprisoned upon conviction.
If you're talking about state prosecutions, that's an entirely different argument.
The Constitution is about federal powers. When the clause everyone is dissecting ITT was written, the Framers didn't even intend these rules to apply to states. It's very likely even if there is a limit on federal prosecutions until impeachment-removal, that state prosecutions wouldn't be subject to any of those regulations.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 7:19 am to dgnx6
quote:
I do not think your rights are any less precious than a former president's.
quote:
arresting bush during 911
Was there a 2nd 911 that happened after 2008?
Posted on 1/11/24 at 7:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Was there a 2nd 911 that happened after 2008?
W was president during 911.
I’m trying to get you guys to stop thinking in terms of trump because you hate him.
The op states ordering a seal team six. Can a former president order seal team six to assassinate someone? I guess he could, but would they follow his orders?
I’m looking at this as while president he did this.
But you can continue on being a fricking moron.
quote:
“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
Doesn’t say could a former president, does it? Don’t fricking try to get smart arse on a smart arse.
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 7:31 am
Posted on 1/11/24 at 7:37 am to dgnx6
quote:
I’m trying to get you guys to stop thinking in terms of trump because you hate him.
Wut?
quote:
W was president during 911.
You responded to a comment about former Presidents, and made a reference to a scenario with an active President.
*ETA: if it helps your TDS, I dislike GWB a great deal more than Trump
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 7:38 am
Posted on 1/11/24 at 7:39 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
Article I Section 3 Clause 7
Impeachment Judgments Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 7:44 am to Wednesday
quote:
Impeachment Judgments Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States
An impeachment-removal proceeding can't have any more punitive effect than removal from office and prohibition of holding future office (a limitation on Congress from creating criminal penalties associated with impeachment, separating the two concepts).
quote:
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
An impeachment proceeding is not a replacement for criminal prosecution, so if a President is impeached-removed, he can still be liable for criminal prosecution (again, separating the two concepts and preventing a removed President from claiming he was already "prosecuted" and "convicted")
Nowhere does that clause create a limitation of criminal prosecution via administrative-civil action. The two clauses both strenuously seek to separate the impeachment-removal process and potential criminal prosecution.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 7:58 am to BBONDS25
quote:
You don’t think the founders considered the chilling effect of an absence of immunity?
Sure they did. I also don't think they remotely intended to provide blanket immunity because that sets up a defacto monarchy. Some people like that, it has been better than Viagra for many a Whitehouse council.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:03 am to udtiger
quote:
"But the party CONVICTED"
Impeachment = Indictment by House (essentially, a grand jury)
The Senate conducts the trial and CONVICTS (or acquits).
Thus, only after that process does the person impeached become "the party convicted" and only at that point are they subject to the other processes.
You are adding intent that isn't there. It clearly allows the judicial check preventing the argument the legislative punishment is the sole punishment. It does not indicate it is meant to work the other direction, nothing in the texts indicates that if the legislative check is not used the judicial check no longer exists. The idea of 2 checks on each branch is a core principle, if the intent was to make one of those checks dependent on the other it would have been presented in clear language.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You responded to a comment about former Presidents, and made a reference to a scenario with an active President. *ETA: if it helps your TDS, I dislike GWB a great deal more than Trump
Try following the thread instead of playing gotcha on me.
This is about committing crimes as president.
Even obtuse stated poisoning someone as president, not as a former president. I poked a whole in his theory and he pivoted.
And you know that me or you being arrested is diff than the president. That has geopolitical ramifications. Me spending a Tuesday night in jail doesn’t. Just stop it.
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 8:09 am
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News