- 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 10:32 am to AgSGT
Posted on 1/11/24 at 10:32 am to AgSGT
quote:
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
Would genuinely like a link for this since I only know about the boy and his father killed in the Middle East. I don’t think politicans’ lives are more valuable than any one else’s. I do think killing politicians denies millions of Americans a choice in the way that killing me does not, which does inherently make it more important to the country
0
Posted on 1/11/24 at 10:50 am to SlowFlowPro
How so?
If the bar to prosecuting a President, or former President for alleged crimes while President, is impeachment and conviction then it applies to murder just as it does insurrection.
Wasn't this raised as an issue years ago? Commander in chief orders a strike to kill an enemy combatant who is a US citizen. Do we really want local DAs or even a federal prosecutor to have the power to indict a President over such action?
If the bar to prosecuting a President, or former President for alleged crimes while President, is impeachment and conviction then it applies to murder just as it does insurrection.
Wasn't this raised as an issue years ago? Commander in chief orders a strike to kill an enemy combatant who is a US citizen. Do we really want local DAs or even a federal prosecutor to have the power to indict a President over such action?
Posted on 1/11/24 at 10:54 am to JimEverett
quote:
Commander in chief orders a strike to kill an enemy combatant who is a US citizen.
There's constitutionally a difference between orders that fall within their constitutional powers and those from without.
The Con gives us the mechanism to remove them from office via impeachment.
The question is if the President tells someone "Hey go kill this guy" that he just doesn't like, is the only remedy impeachment?
Personally, I think not. Its just not framed within the Con in that manner
Posted on 1/11/24 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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
While the constitution specifically states if one is impeached and convicted they can still be indicted by a criminal court, the writers did not specifically address if impeached but not convicted..... why?
Maybe if there wasn't enough for the Senate to convict, the writers figured there wouldn't be enough for a court to convict. That what happens if not convicted isn't specifically addressed implies there is no further action to be had. Unless a corrupt sitting President orders a corrupt DOJ to pursue.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 11:27 am to Fun Bunch
Sure, but it seems prudent not to leave the questions of what falls within legitimate constitutional powers solely up to local DAs and federal prosecutors.
A President could face a series of criminal charges brought by partisan actors under such a view - sort of similar to where we are today with Trump - although I guess there could be an argument that once a President leaves office he can be prosecuted without impeachment, but even that seems problematic, although to a lesser extent given it doesn't directly impede the office itself. But it indirectly does.
A President could face a series of criminal charges brought by partisan actors under such a view - sort of similar to where we are today with Trump - although I guess there could be an argument that once a President leaves office he can be prosecuted without impeachment, but even that seems problematic, although to a lesser extent given it doesn't directly impede the office itself. But it indirectly does.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 12:19 pm to JimEverett
quote:
If the bar to prosecuting a President, or former President for alleged crimes while President, is impeachment and conviction then it applies to murder just as it does insurrection.
But it’s not. There is no bar to prosecuting a sitting or former President for crimes committed outside the scope of the duties of his office—nor should anyone want there to be. POTUS is not a Roman consul.
quote:
Commander in chief orders a strike to kill an enemy combatant who is a US citizen. Do we really want local DAs or even a federal prosecutor to have the power to indict a President over such action?
Action ordered as part of his duties as POTUS. Charges dismissed/indictment quashed.
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 1/11/24 at 12:46 pm to MAADFACTS
quote:
Obama got away with assassinating two Americans via drone attack, how is this hypothetical different?
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?
Morally - yes.
Legally…I’m not so sure.
In essence, legally, he murdered two US citizens who didn’t revoke their citizenship, or have their citizenship revoked.
Again, President Obama may have had a moral justification, but it’s the legality of the circumstance that is at question.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 12:54 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Again, President Obama may have had a moral justification, but it’s the legality of the circumstance that is at question.
It’s not the underlying legality that is at question. It’s whether the action was taken within the scope of the duties of the office.
Obama’s drone strikes rather indisputably were ordered as part of his performance of his duty as commander in chief.
Assassinating political opponents can’t even arguably fit into that category.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 12:54 pm to Eurocat
Presidents have always been immune from extrajudicial assassinations. Why is it only being brought up now? Obama assassinated an American teenager just because he didn't like that teenager's dad. I'm not talking about what aboutisms, I'm just curious as to why something that has always been normal, is now being discussed at the higher level...and only in regards to trump.
I had the same thought with classified documents. Why was it only considered a big deal regarding trump and no one else? I can guarantee that it won't be considered a big deal in the future either, for anyone else.
I'm just not a fan of justice not being blind. Giving some people special treatment when they commit crimes, while punishing others for committing the same crimes.
I had the same thought with classified documents. Why was it only considered a big deal regarding trump and no one else? I can guarantee that it won't be considered a big deal in the future either, for anyone else.
I'm just not a fan of justice not being blind. Giving some people special treatment when they commit crimes, while punishing others for committing the same crimes.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 12:58 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
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.
Cite me the language for this as well as the Incorporation language for the original Constitution to apply to states, please.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:00 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
local judges and district attorneys from being able to bog down and keep the President from his duties
My guy, the drafters of the Constitution didn’t even envision the document applying to the States. It certainly wasn’t drafted contemplating any sort of limitation on State actions.
That came later.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:01 pm to Eurocat
quote:
A lawyer for the former president said he would be immune from prosecution for the murder of a political rival while in office unless he was first impeached and convicted in Congress.
This follows the guidance of the DOJ’s memos on the subject which have been around for decades.
And the Federalist writings on the subject.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:15 pm to the808bass
quote:
DOJ’s memos on the subject which have been around for decades.
DOJ memos addressing State charges? Or DOJ memos addressing internal DOJ policy with respect to federal charges?
quote:
And the Federalist writings on the subject.
Which of the Federalist Papers?
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:16 pm to JimEverett
quote:
How so?
Removal
Prosecution
14A ineligibility
are 3 completely separate legal issues.
quote:
Wasn't this raised as an issue years ago? Commander in chief orders a strike to kill an enemy combatant who is a US citizen. Do we really want local DAs or even a federal prosecutor to have the power to indict a President over such action?
That's a 4th issue: immunity
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:18 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
My guy, the drafters of the Constitution didn’t even envision the document applying to the States. It certainly wasn’t drafted contemplating any sort of limitation on State actions.
That came later.
100%
The DC/Florida federal prosecutions are very different than the NY/GA prosecutions, in terms of the Constitution
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:18 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
DOJ memos addressing State charges? Or DOJ memos addressing internal DOJ policy with respect to federal charges?
Yes.
quote:
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions
October 16, 2000
Memorandum
Opinion for the Attorney General
In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.
We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of Constitution.
LINK
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:23 pm to the808bass
I see you added it to the post.
Quick review indicates that this memo is what Trump’s team is hanging its hat on.
I couldn’t disagree with the conclusion more as it relates to the impeachment issue, but I see that it is out there.
Quick review indicates that this memo is what Trump’s team is hanging its hat on.
I couldn’t disagree with the conclusion more as it relates to the impeachment issue, but I see that it is out there.
This post was edited on 1/11/24 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:24 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Which of the Federalist Papers?
I quoted them in the other thread the other day. Hamilton laid out the process in steps. Impeachment and removal came first.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:28 pm to the808bass
quote:
Hamilton laid out the process in steps. Impeachment and removal came first.
If that’s what they wanted to require, they should have worded the clause better.
Posted on 1/11/24 at 1:33 pm to Indefatigable
Great. You should take that up with the founding fathers. Maybe include your CV.
You should also keep in mind that the founding fathers weren’t sophists.
You should also keep in mind that the founding fathers weren’t sophists.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News