Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
Thirty seconds into this video, Justice Kagan asks if a president would be immune if he ordered the military to stage a coup, would he be immune.
The answer Sauer gave was "if it were an official act."
The real answer is that no one is actually arguing that the president is immune for committing crimes in his capacity as president. The argument is that the president must be impeached and convicted before he can be tried in criminal court for something he did as president.
For her hypothetical to be even possible, the president would have to order a coup, and then NOT be impeached and convicted. It that happens - the president ordering a coup and the congress going along with it, all nicities of legal precedent become meaningless, because the republic would be lost.
Not one of the impeachments of presidents in our history have resulted in conviction/removal. Becuase they have all been motivated by pure politics, so the president's party did not vote to convict. Richard Nixon resigned just before a vote on impeachment. Had he stuck with it, he may well have been removed.
Now . . . if he ordered a coup, his Generals refused the order, and his successor was sworn in and the military and Secret Service physically removed the now ex-president from the White House, it is theoretically possible that the House would not impeach, or if they did, that the Senate would not convict - which would be needed to clear the way for prosecution.
But if that happened, the lawmakers would have some reason. Maybe they would think that the president was an older man, prone to forgetfulness, who would be a sympathetic figure, so nothing would be gained by prosecuting him. If so, that's our representative government and if we disagree, we can vote the rascals out in less than two years.
In other words, the U.S. Constitution with its represenative democracy works just fine when we let it. It doesn't work,if one party weaponizes the DOJ to take away the choice of a large number of voters.
The answer Sauer gave was "if it were an official act."
The real answer is that no one is actually arguing that the president is immune for committing crimes in his capacity as president. The argument is that the president must be impeached and convicted before he can be tried in criminal court for something he did as president.
For her hypothetical to be even possible, the president would have to order a coup, and then NOT be impeached and convicted. It that happens - the president ordering a coup and the congress going along with it, all nicities of legal precedent become meaningless, because the republic would be lost.
Not one of the impeachments of presidents in our history have resulted in conviction/removal. Becuase they have all been motivated by pure politics, so the president's party did not vote to convict. Richard Nixon resigned just before a vote on impeachment. Had he stuck with it, he may well have been removed.
Now . . . if he ordered a coup, his Generals refused the order, and his successor was sworn in and the military and Secret Service physically removed the now ex-president from the White House, it is theoretically possible that the House would not impeach, or if they did, that the Senate would not convict - which would be needed to clear the way for prosecution.
But if that happened, the lawmakers would have some reason. Maybe they would think that the president was an older man, prone to forgetfulness, who would be a sympathetic figure, so nothing would be gained by prosecuting him. If so, that's our representative government and if we disagree, we can vote the rascals out in less than two years.
In other words, the U.S. Constitution with its represenative democracy works just fine when we let it. It doesn't work,if one party weaponizes the DOJ to take away the choice of a large number of voters.
