Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

[BluesLegend]

Justice is supposed to be blind

LMAO said no Democrat ever in the last 100 years.

 

[22lcidw]

Trump's profound mental illness and desperate need for validation create chaos wherever he goes.

Look at this one fucking lie has done. All because he lacks the self esteem to admit he fucking LOST.

We have seen mental illness personified in Joe's administration alone the last few years. It looks like some dystopian post-apocalyptic world. Trump to you and others is a lot of things. He has been accused of a lot. Well, he sees things also. And he can accuse. He just does not have the 5th column of media and entertainers on his side. Look how prissy Jimmy Kimmel got with Aaron Rogers. There is not a day that goes by that he does not demean and destroy anyone not a Prog. And if it is hearsay, so what. Just to see a video of Rogers eating the shit out of Kimmel would be worth the price of a ticket. Kimmel with his words have set people to hurt other people. Like many other TV media/entertainers.

 

[Thanos]

According to Trumps lawyer
If Trump murders someone, he can’t be prosecuted unless Republicans in the Senate agree to it

Yep, but these moronic lightweight MAGA twits have no idea that this was the argument that Trump's idiot lawyer was making.

 

[Thanos]

LMAO said no Democrat ever in the last 100 years.

Actually, I'm sure many of them have said that, lightweight.

 

[MinTrut]

You really, and I do mean really look up the meaning of extra-judicially. In fact, I'll do it for you. Definition of EXTRAJUDICIAL

This is the applicable meaning.
b
: delivered without legal authority

In the case of Osama Bin Laden that legal authority was provided by congress by the signing of a law that declared war. That gives it legal authority. They also signed the Patriot Act given further LEGAL authority. I'll admit I hated and still hate that particular piece of legislation, but it was lawful. But even under the Geneva Convention, which typically governs conduct in war the killing of Bin Laden was justified.

See my prior posts.

OBL's capture was justified, but not his assassination.

And you may want to look more deeply into the use of the term in question; cut/paste is only sufficing to make you appear like a bloodthirsty/hypocritical idiot.

I say this as your forum bestie.

None of it though applies here.

I'm simply stating your argument.

And claiming I support the killing of a political rival because I supported the killing of Bin Laden is not just a strawman it's also completely absurd.

It's neither, but you're too high on your own imagined purity to see it.

So I'll give you an easier question.

Oh goody.

Do you support the concept of absolute presidential immunity?

You do, at least when convenient to your pretzel logic.

I believe I've made my view abundantly clear.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, cause giving a speech is totally equivalent to ordering someone murdered or committing treason. ROFLMFAO I didn't think judges were suppose to ask politically loaded gotcha questions.

.

No, it's not equivalent in the slightest. I'm not suggesting it is, and the judges aren't asking loaded questions as a gotcha. What they do, and what their job as judges is, is to think through the full implications of the arguments presented. Not just for the case, but for further cases. This is what I am suggesting.

I'm suggesting the logic of the argument of absolute presidential immunity that HE chooses to push. Leads to his lawyers having to concede it would allow the killing of a political rival WITHOUT him being held to account.

Even IF Trump would not contemplate it (and I'm not nearly as convinced as you are that he wouldn't). The fact that this is a precedent he's willing to set, disqualifies him as a candidate. Noone running for high public office should be willing to assert that winning that office makes him absolute immune from prosecution including for killing political rivals. And he is.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Both.

He might come unstuck then

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, do you want me to rub salt in that Dem wound again? I do like watching Dems suffer.

Hmm…
Too chickenshit to answer my actual question I see.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I’m not going to lie, I always thought this presidential immunity approach was pretty weak. I think it’s just a stall tactic. Jack Smith was so eager that the trial start right before whichever important primary it was, that this is just a way to throw him off his rhythm.

If the president really does have immunity for his ex in office, then impeaching him after the fact, shouldn’t change that, and allow him to be prosecuted.

If the president really does have impunity, it would have to be for actions as president, not just while president, in my opinion. Making a speech about how he thought the election was stolen, seems much more the act of. Rather than..

More importantly, why fall back on some novel legal theory of presidential immunity instead of just saying it wasn’t a crime because he was making a speech, duh! But lawyers like to throw every possibility at every case.

Or it’s just simply all they have.

Trump is screwed.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Sounds Like Biden just found a way to insure his second term.

Is the judge justifying a democrat assassination?

 

[Kondor3]

Its not a legal process and the outcome depends on who has the majority.
He is suggesting that a pres with a healthy majority is above the law.
Its nonsense.

It is, indeed, nonsense.

Apparently, the Orange Baboon cannot shoot somebody on 5th Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it, after all.

Serves the arrogant, ignorant POS right...

 

[Independent thinker]

Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive&…

thehill.com

The people that are arguing that President Biden is abusing his office because a Special Counsel has indicted his political rival, is now arguing a President can KILL his political opponent and get away with it, providing he isn't impeached for the deed or resigns if impeachment looms. Feel free to justify it.

Judge Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, noted that a president could resign rather than face impeachment, something that under the framework of Trump’s attorneys would allow them to dodge future prosecution.

We used to do that in the old days, or at least try, until JFK and Castro. However, we order assassinations all the time, including Biden.

 

[MinTrut]

Never.

Oh I absolutely concur.

Wrong party/country for this to happen.

This is reality, not your bizarre cult fantasy land.

Ironic.

But you agree with the argument that presidents may murder extra-judicially?

Or is it just the presidents you like that can do this with impunity?

 

[MinTrut]

This is NOT a winning argument!



IMMUNITY APPEAL: Trump's attorney argues a president could have opponent assassinated

So, should Joe just go ahead and whack Trump? He has all the machinery in place...

Obama did these things, so why not Biden?

 

[forkup]

Obama ordered the killing of a 16 year old American citizen, Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, but was never prosecuted.

No the target was Ibrahim al-Banna - Wikipedia. The kid was collateral. Tragic as it was. Now I could say that his father was a legitimate target but that doesn't excuse it. So, I'll refer to this http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf


"nintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time",[20] which also states that "uch damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack".

 

[rightwinger]

It is, indeed, nonsense.

Apparently, the Orange Baboon cannot shoot somebody on 5th Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it, after all.

Serves the arrogant, ignorant POS right...

So far, he has gotten away with it

 

[OKTexas]

No, it's not equivalent in the slightest. I'm not suggesting it is, and the judges aren't asking loaded questions as a gotcha. What they do, and what their job as judges is, is to think through the full implications of the arguments presented. Not just for the case, but for further cases. This is what I am suggesting.

No, judges are suppose to address the matter at hand, not some far fetched commiecrat fantasies. There's a huge difference between giving a political speech and overtly committing a criminal act.

.

 

[forkup]

We used to do that in the old days, or at least try, until JFK and Castro. However, we order assassinations all the time, including Biden.

So, you see no difference between killing Bin Laden and Biden killing Trump, or Trump killing Biden?

 

[forkup]

No, judges are suppose to address the matter at hand, not some far fetched commiecrat fantasies. There's a huge difference between giving a political speech and overtly committing a criminal act.

.

Then I'm sorry to tell you but you do not understand the role of judges.

 

[StoneCold]

Impeachment is a political process
A criminal prosecution is a judicial process

And he is claiming Presidential immunity to be a political decision! It's up to the Senate! Not criminal law.
That's dictator shit!