Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

[Lesh]

Its intereting that nobody is really defending trumps assertion on this thread. Even maga is pretty quiet on this.
Maybe there is hope ?

Because it is indefensible, appalling, and frankly stupid

 

[Care4all]

Its intereting that nobody is really defending trumps assertion on this thread. Even maga is pretty quiet on this.
Maybe there is hope ?

They are not speaking out against trump lawyer's claim either, which simply means it does not matter to them... as long as it is a president Trump committing the assassination or murder of his opponent, he is immune from being held criminally responsible....

What a silly, dangerous, dictorial, notion!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

They are not speaking out against trump lawyer's claim either, which simply means it does not matter to them... as long as it is a president Trump committing the assassination or murder of his opponent, he is immune from being held criminally responsible....

What a silly, dangerous, dictorial, notion!

They lack the intellectual capacity to imagine these mythical powers in the hands of an opponent.
Its breathtaking really.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do you believe the president could assassinate a political rival and go unpunished if he was not impeached and convicted for the crime?

No.

And are you actually willing to vote for someone who makes that precise argument?

His lawyers did not make that precise argument, that was a hypothetical question from a judge.

Depends on who else is available to vote for.

Having lawyers who make a legal argument with which I, as a layman, disagree, is not as disqualifying as deliberately throwing open our southern border and allowing it to be controlled exclusively by Mexican drug gangs, for example.

 

[Seymour Flops]

They are not speaking out against trump lawyer's claim either, which simply means it does not matter to them... as long as it is a president Trump committing the assassination or murder of his opponent, he is immune from being held criminally responsible....

What a silly, dangerous, dictorial, notion!

Trump’s lawyers’ claim is being misstated, as several have said. You want someone to defend the misstatement of Trump’s attorneys’ position as if it were their actual position.

Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump would need to be impeached before being prosecuted, not that he could not be prosecuted.

Grow up, Dems. You’re about to learn another life lesson in how the American people are not nearly so controllable as the Europeans you would like us to be.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Except that is, recognizing that a president can kill political opponents.

Even IF I recognize your feelings, that you like Trump as a President. It still seems like a big price to pay.

So you like to be micro managed by the government. Who can't manage something without failing.

 

[forkup]

So you like to be micro managed by the government. Who can't manage something without failing.

If being "micro managed" by the government means I don't have to live in a country that has at it's head an autocrat, sure.

I can vote a guy out of office if I don't like him in a Democracy. If, however, a leader is free from the restriction of the law, it would only take one of them being sufficiently ruthless to impose its will, to destroy that choice.

That's the logical end-result of the absolute presidential immunity claim. Note I don't say Trump is that guy. I suspect he would be but I'm not a fortune teller. What I do know is that sooner or later someone will be that guy, (or woman). At that point it'll be to late.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The three Judge panel will of course the possibilities of just what a complete claim of immunity means, and that means they will consider hypotheticals.

An en banc ruling will come next, and then the Supreme Court, I predict, will not accept it, unless the full appellate court accepts Trump's arguments.

 

[BlindBoo]

Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump would need to be impeached before being prosecuted, not that he could not be prosecuted.

He was impeached. They argued that he must be convicted by the Senate before the DOJ could prosecute him in any criminal cases. In direct contrast to what Senate Majority leader and Benedict Donald's own lawyers emphatically claimed during the Senate trial. They claimed the Senate could not convict him after he left office, but the DOJ could arrest him and charge him as soon as he left office.

 

[dudmuck]

Obama murdered Osama bin Laden without due process.

How do you justify this?

 

[Seymour Flops]

He was impeached. They argued that he must be convicted by the Senate before the DOJ could prosecute him in any criminal cases. In direct contrast to what Senate Majority leader and Benedict Donald's own lawyers emphatically claimed during the Senate trial. They claimed the Senate could not convict him after he left office, but the DOJ could arrest him and charge him as soon as he left office.

Yes, those are some of the arguments. Trump’s lawyers have made.

is this the first time you’ve ever read stories about attorneys? That’s what attorneys do: they make this argument and then they make that argument.

They argue for weeks that their client is completely innocent because they did not do the crime, and then, when the punishment face starts, they argued that there are mitigating reasons for why he did the crime. If I had an attorney who did not do those things, I would sue him or her for malpractice.


If you don’t like that, complain to the bar association. However, since the overwhelming majority, or Democrats, duplicity is their stock and trade, and they will not give it up.

As I told one of your fellow Dems, it’s time to grow up. Y’all are about to find out that the American people are not like Europeans or Canadians.

 

[MinTrut]

Trump’s ambulance chaser sounded like a complete moron.

I was not impressed.

But when you have so many witch hunts happening simultaneously, I guess your legal teams get stretched pretty thin.

Which is all part of the Demonic Democrat strategy.

Whirlwind's a comin' folks.

Nowhere in the constitution does it remotely infer that a President has to be impeached and removed from office before he can be indicted and tried for a crime.

This bizarre argument is being put forth by members of both criminal gangs.

Clearly a sitting president could at the very least be detained/arrested under certain circumstances prior to any impeachment action/s.

 

[MinTrut]

Its intereting that nobody is really defending trumps assertion on this thread. Even maga is pretty quiet on this.
Maybe there is hope ?

It's not really Trump's assertion, but a mishandled legal argument of a pretty standard sort.

Ultimately a Nothing Burger.

 

[MinTrut]

Because it is indefensible, appalling, and frankly stupid

The judge is a sleazy moron, I agree.

 

[MinTrut]

They are not speaking out against trump lawyer's claim either, which simply means it does not matter to them... as long as it is a president Trump committing the assassination or murder of his opponent, he is immune from being held criminally responsible....

What a silly, dangerous, dictorial, notion!

Or Obama for the Democrats.

What a silly, dangerous, dictatorial notion!

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes, those are some of the arguments. Trump’s lawyers have made.

is this the first time you’ve ever read stories about attorneys? That’s what attorneys do: they make this argument and then they make that argument.

They argue for weeks that their client is completely innocent because they did not do the crime, and then, when the punishment face starts, they argued that there are mitigating reasons for why he did the crime. If I had an attorney who did not do those things, I would sue him or her for malpractice.


If you don’t like that, complain to the bar association. However, since the overwhelming majority, or Democrats, duplicity is their stock and trade, and they will not give it up.

As I told one of your fellow Dems, it’s time to grow up. Y’all are about to find out that the American people are not like Europeans or Canadians.

Senator McConnell was not Benedict Donald's lawyer. Especially after what he said about Benedict's culpability in the Jan 6th coup attempt right before stating that he was still liable for any crimes he committed.

"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.
The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.
And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth."

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-14/read-mcconnell-speech-after-trumps-impeachment-trial-acquittal

 

[MinTrut]

They lack the intellectual capacity to imagine these mythical powers in the hands of an opponent.
Its breathtaking really.

Irony overload.

 

[MinTrut]

Yes, those are some of the arguments. Trump’s lawyers have made.

is this the first time you’ve ever read stories about attorneys? That’s what attorneys do: they make this argument and then they make that argument.

They argue for weeks that their client is completely innocent because they did not do the crime, and then, when the punishment face starts, they argued that there are mitigating reasons for why he did the crime. If I had an attorney who did not do those things, I would sue him or her for malpractice.


If you don’t like that, complain to the bar association. However, since the overwhelming majority, or Democrats, duplicity is their stock and trade, and they will not give it up.

As I told one of your fellow Dems, it’s time to grow up. Y’all are about to find out that the American people are not like Europeans or Canadians.

Correct.

Lawyers may present a battery of conflicting claims in defense of their client.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Senator McConnell was not Benedict Donald's lawyer. Especially after what he said about Benedict's culpability in the Jan 6th coup attempt right before stating that he was still liable for any crimes he committed.

"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.
The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president.
And their having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth."

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-02-14/read-mcconnell-speech-after-trumps-impeachment-trial-acquittal

I recommend you not rely on McConnell as your reference for how Trump is defending his cases, then.

 

[Edgetho]

Because dimocrap scum are stupid, I will explain it to you...... Assassinating a Political Rival is outside the scope of "Official Duties". So is walking up to a stranger and shooting him in the head.

So, no. There is no immunity.

It was a stupid question from a stupid dimocrap scumbag anyway. Figures other stupid dimocrap scum would seize on it.

When Presidents assassinate people, and yes, Virginia, they do. They almost always consult with Congress first. Unless it's during a time of conflict in which Congress has given POTUS an AUMF (authorization to use military force).

Such a stupid question from a stupid Judge that I knew stupid people would seize on.

We live in an Idiocracy. Scary that so many people are so stupid...... And we give them the right to vote. frightening