- 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 8:12 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nowhere does that clause create a limitation of criminal prosecution
Correct. This is not the source of immunity, that is another place. This just explains how to unlock it.
1
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:21 am to TrueTiger
Immunity for Presidential acts and the impeachment-administrative hurdle are 2 different things, though.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Immunity for Presidential acts
That's the other test that has been left out by discussing immunity in a vacuum. The premise of the immunity is that the action done had at some relation to the duties of the office, and I think the relation can be very liberally construed. You only need to get close.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:31 am to TrueTiger
quote:
If he is successfully impeached, then he can be prosecuted. Impeachment conviction lifts immunity. quote: 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. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 7
That looks like it’s saying impeachment itself does not come with a punishment beyond removal from office, but the president can still have criminal charges brought against them in addition to it. I’m not sure it says the president can murder political rivals as long as their party also controls congress
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:41 am to MAADFACTS
quote:
I’m not sure it says the president can murder political rivals
This is a ridiculous hypothetical.
There is no immunity for anyone who has to live in the real world. Everyone knows there are punishments outside of 'official' channels.
You know why King John signed the Magna Carta? He was a King, with unlimited power and immunity. So why did he sign?
He did it because he lived in the real world and knew that there are limits outside of legal and political systems and he didn't want to test them.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:41 am to AgSGT
quote:
Obama got away with assassinating two Americans via drone attack, how is this hypothetical different?
Obama should have been held accountability, but still, hypothetically, I can see a pretty big difference between a drone strike against alleged Al Qaeda members in the Middle East and if President Biden ordered a strike against Donald Trump, don’t you?
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:43 am to TrueTiger
[quote]This is a ridiculous hypothetical. [/quote
Oh for sure. The hypothetical is bullshite and was asked just to make the Trump team look bad. It’s the worst of the slippery slope arguments. They m just responding to the post in this thread that is like “this is what the constitution says”
Oh for sure. The hypothetical is bullshite and was asked just to make the Trump team look bad. It’s the worst of the slippery slope arguments. They m just responding to the post in this thread that is like “this is what the constitution says”
Posted on 1/11/24 at 8:46 am to TrueTiger
quote:
That's the other test that has been left out by discussing immunity in a vacuum. The premise of the immunity is that the action done had at some relation to the duties of the office, and I think the relation can be very liberally construed. You only need to get close.
Didn’t the Clinton team try and make the argument that he was protected from the allegations brought against him by Paula Jones, and didn’t the Supreme Court agree? Like it’s absolute bullshite, but liberal courts did set that stupid precedent
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:04 am to dgnx6
quote:
Even obtuse stated poisoning someone as president, not as a former president. I poked a whole in his theory and he pivoted.
I missed this because I had no intent to pivot and did not intense to make any concession.
We are talking about crimes committed alleged to have been committed by a sitting president and indicted as a former president.
Crimes commented outside of their term is a much shorter discussion. An attempt to indict, try, convict, and punish a sitting president for crimes during or before his presidency is a longer but very different discussion.
I have framed the specific discussion over and over and the clause being used to suggest he can't be tried by the judicial branch if not impeached and convicted by the legislative branch prior simply does not say that.
This is my poisoning analogy:
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.
I merely used that to point out a possible scenario if you link Trump's current argument with his former argument that you can't impeach a president once his term is over.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:18 am to MAADFACTS
quote:
Obama should have been held accountability, but still, hypothetically, I can see a pretty big difference between a drone strike against alleged Al Qaeda members in the Middle East and if President Biden ordered a strike against Donald Trump, don’t you?
Well to start, he killed Americans that were not AQ nor alleged to be a part of AQ. Unless you think a politician's life is worth more than your everyday American's life, I don't see a difference
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:28 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.
I agree. It states specifically what further action could be taken on the "convicted", but says nothing about the person "not convicted" because there is no further action to be had.
As I stated earlier, the founding fathers never imagined a president impeached but not convicted would ever have to answer the same charge after office. I understand impeachment is not a legal criminal proceeding, but it's the official proceeding used to determine wrong doing of those holding the highest positions of our nation. That should carry enough weight that a reasonable person wouldn't attempt to charge the accused again for that which he was previously "found innocent".
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 9:32 am
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:34 am to wackatimesthree
The Judge was obviously referring to a domestic political rival like Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama.
Trump has absolute immunity in the performance of an official act just like every public officer has when they perform an official act including Dumocrats.
Trump has absolute immunity in the performance of an official act just like every public officer has when they perform an official act including Dumocrats.
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 10:31 am
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:45 am to TrueTiger
the constitution says nothing about prosecuting a president who commit criminal acts in office.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:51 am to CeterisParibus
quote:
the constitution says nothing about prosecuting a president who commit criminal acts in office.
It's not nothing, but we aren't sure what it means, but it's not nothing.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 9:55 am to TrueTiger
The Founding Fathers were brilliant.
They understood the dangers of politics and impeachment and conviction of a President as a first step for criminal prosecution lessened the chances the country would devolve into backwoods Banana Republic like we see today where unelected partisan Secretaries of State push former Presidents off the ballot for any made up reason they can think.
They understood the dangers of politics and impeachment and conviction of a President as a first step for criminal prosecution lessened the chances the country would devolve into backwoods Banana Republic like we see today where unelected partisan Secretaries of State push former Presidents off the ballot for any made up reason they can think.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 10:07 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
I understand impeachment is not a legal criminal proceeding, but it's the official proceeding used to determine wrong doing of those holding the highest positions of our nation.
*for purposes of removal from office
Posted on 1/11/24 at 10:08 am to JimEverett
quote:
They understood the dangers of politics and impeachment and conviction of a President as a first step for criminal prosecution lessened the chances the country would devolve into backwoods Banana Republic like we see today where unelected partisan Secretaries of State push former Presidents off the ballot for any made up reason they can think.
This is an ENTIRELY different argument, legally.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 10:09 am to Obtuse1
quote:
I missed this because I had no intent to pivot and did not intense to make any concession.
We are talking about crimes committed alleged to have been committed by a sitting president and indicted as a former president.
Correct. And im saying that the stipulation could be there to protect any president against bullshite as the sitting president. And I suppose that would protect him in poisoning someone on the last day too.
I was just using Bush as an example of a sitting president being arrested for some made up bs as strictly a political attack being much more dangerous than me going to jail on bs charges.
Not that Bush was or should have been arrested. its a hypothetical im giving you saying we should treat the president a little differently than me when arresting them.
But if Trump shot someone in cold blood yesterday, charge him. That is not what we are talking about though.
And sfp tried to play smart arse with me and that's not going to work.
I know im an idiot, it's the sfps of the world that need to be brought down a peg or two.
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 10:13 am
Posted on 1/11/24 at 10:27 am to JimEverett
quote:
The Founding Fathers were brilliant.
Agreed.
Which is why impeachment and criminal conviction have absolutely no bearing on each other. It’s in the plain text.
Arguing that legislative impeachment and removal is a prerequisite to criminal prosecution is almost as bad as the related double jeopardy argument.
No chance the federal courts buy either one.
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 10:30 am
Posted on 1/11/24 at 10:30 am to Eurocat
quote:
Eurocat
OK dumbass.
The constitution is written the way it is to keep local judges and district attorneys from being able to bog down and keep the President from his duties. It is the same way that the local politicians in DC cannot interfere with Federal business. The also dont have senators or representatives (yet).
Certainly you can see how the ability of local courts being able to give legal issues to the President would be a bad thing.
If a President were to murder someone the PROPER way to resolve it would be for the House to impeach and the Senate to convict the President, removing him from office. After he is removed he can be tried for the murder.
And the judge that asked the question didnt have a problem with Obama killing a US citizen with a drone strike. Its all about stopping Trump.
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News