Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

[AntonToo]

Judge Florence Pan started off her questioning of Trump lawyer John Sauer by offering a novel scenario.

“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and was not impeached, could he be subjected to criminal prosecution?” Pan asked.

After some back and forth, Sauer said, “Qualified yes, if he’s impeached and convicted first.”

Trump doubles down after DC hearing: ‘Most people agree that we’re entitled to immunity’ – as it happened

If the judges rule in favor of Trump, it could lead to the dropping of the criminal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith

www.theguardian.com

This is not how democracies run. It is how imperial dictators run things. The US fought against this but perhaps the founders had not considered a trump when forming the constitution.

Republicans after Jan 6th - We are not going to convict Trump because he already left office and it's moot.

Now Trump lawyers - Trump cannot be prosecuted because he was not impeached.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're not informed. You didn't know Obama murdered a bunch of doctors? You better get up to speed

No, because we aren't idiots, and we understand what the word murder means.

 

[forkup]

Yep but being stupid can be detrimental to your health.

I don't know. You seem to be doing fine.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't know. You seem to be doing fine.

Stupid people can't make it on their own.

 

[forkup]

Stupid people can't make it on their own.

You have a girlfriend? Tell me it isn't so? That really shakes my faith in the concept of a "fairer sex"

 

[noonereal]

Sure you will skipper.

Just try your insurrection again, bitch, you'll see.

 

[noonereal]

There is all kinds of credible evidence that you assholes deny. If mail in ballots are secure why did 89% of democracies outlaw them.
View attachment 886145
1. Ballot Integrity Procedures and Laws are part of every modern democracy to ensure election integrity.
2. 89% of European democracies banned absentee voting to resident citizens, while 100% require Photo ID for any form of voting to prevent targeted fraud.
3. 37 states in the US altered their absentee/mail-in ballots Ballot Integrity Procedures for 2020 Presidential Election.

Evidence Stats on the 2020 Election | Here Is The Evidence

Crowdsourcing evidence for journalists.

hereistheevidence.com

this is nut job propaganda

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have a girlfriend? Tell me it isn't so? That really shakes my faith in the concept of a "fairer sex"

I have a wife three sons and 4 grand children

 

[BlindBoo]

American citizens have the right to due process. There is no carve out for people who join terrorists.

He could have surrendered and given himself up to have his day in court. He choose to join Al Qaeda and wage war on the citizens of the USA through terrorist attacks on soft targets as an unlawful combatant. He truly earned his grease spot.

 

[MagicMike]

Not if he wins the election, and it sure as fuck looks like he will. Trump will simply pardon himself, but Obama cant pardon HIMSELF anymore.

He's not going to win any election.
Things are going to change very dramatically between now and November.
For starters we don't even know if he's going to be able to remain on ballots in many states.
The SCOTUS will hear the Colorado case on Feb. 8th and probably issue a ruling very quickly.
If SCOTUS upholds Colorado's right to manage it's own election at the state level (like the U.S. Constitution AND the GOP say it should) then it's over for Trump.
Other states will follow and he will have no path to the required number of electoral votes.

IF he is allowed to remain on ballots and actually run then polling indicates his support will plummet with one felony conviction in any one of his criminal trials coming up this year.

No, he is not a "sure thing" at all.
At this point more of a long shot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

American citizens have the right to due process. There is no carve out for people who join terrorists.

Such obviously FAKE concern and pearl clutching

 

[forkup]

I have a wife three sons and 4 grand children

Well, that does explain how you survived.


Now banter aside I will give you this tip. Since I am taught to respect my elders. It seems to me something that an elderly person should know by now.

Calling people names when you are trying to make a point does not grant validity to the argument... in fact it weakens it. What tends to happen is that it derails a conversation into what it is now.

You posed me a question about why I would choose Biden over Trump. I treated it as a fair question although it was leading, and frankly not very well considered. But I offered the respect of taking it seriously, while you obviously weren't and aren't interested in doing the same. Then you simply gave up and called me names.

This is an anonymous message board. I have no control over how other people behave. So, I don't expect much courtesy. I'm here to at least try to have a decent conversation. You can choose to act the same. In which case I'll give you the respect of carefully considering what you're saying and asking, without dodging. Or you can choose to do what you are doing. Either way, just realize, that trying to make me upset doesn't work, and that it isn't a victory when I stop talking to you. It means I find the conversation boring, not that I've run out of arguments.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a Republican would selectively quote a single paragraph from a reply. Claiming I'm dishonest and then make the same argument I make in that reply.

I neither deny nor am shocked that lawyers make whatever argument they think they can get away with. In fact, it's precisely that, that invalidates the premise that there's any act that could not be justified as falling within the scope of Presidential Power.

Something, that is the exact fault the judge exposed in Trump's absolute immunity claim by posing the hypothetical. And what I said and demonstrated in my reply.

I don’t believe I accused you of dishonesty. I’m certain I did not in the post to which you are replying. In fact, I’m about to count on your honesty in responding to what I say next.

Something that brings me to this.

How, can anybody support a person that tries to argue that a President is absolutely immune from prosecution. If it is acknowledged that a lawyer is trained to be able to justify every position?

I can support him simply because that is another legal argument for him to make. And because I know the reason that he made the argument was specifically to thwart Jack Smith plan to have the trial begin at the beginning of the primary season. It worked. That particular part of the plan is down the tubes. I fully support sending it there.

Here’s where that honesty part that I’m counting on, comes in.

I know… that you know… That this is not some legitimate crime fighting effort on the part of Jack Smith, and the other Democratic operatives at the department of Justice. This is nothing more than an attempt to criminalize being an opponent of the current Democratic president. Therefore, any shrieks of indignation at whatever legal maneuvering the Trump team does fall on deaf ears with me.

It is bizarre that Jack Smith, who normally would be a person a very little consequence, it suddenly drape with the power of the federal government, and believes he has the right to use that power to interfere with the election. The fact that so many are cheering him, tells me, the disrepute, the democracy in America has fallen into among those who prefer to get their way at all costs.

Now, maybe you think that’s awesome that this lawfare is being used against President Trump. You may think Donald Trump so evil and so unfit to be president that you would support any effort to keep him out of the White House.

It’s clear that they do not believe that they can beat him at the polls, so they are trying to beat him at the court. Whether you support that or not, I hope you are honest enough to at least admit that is what is going on. I await your response.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Republicans after Jan 6th - We are not going to convict Trump because he already left office and it's moot.

Now Trump lawyers - Trump cannot be prosecuted because he was not impeached.

I recall Gym playing on his phone while evidence was being given in one of his impeachments
Impeachment is a process for more homourable times. Not the age of trump and his chimps.

 

[forkup]

I don’t believe I accused you of dishonesty. I’m certain I did not in the post to which you are replying. In fact, I’m about to count on your honesty in responding to what I say next.

I can support him simply because that is another legal argument for him to make. And because I know the reason that he made the argument was specifically to thwart Jack Smith plan to have the trial begin at the beginning of the primary season. It worked. That particular part of the plan is down the tubes. I fully support sending it there.

Here’s where that honesty part that I’m counting on, comes in.

I know… that you know… That this is not some legitimate crime fighting effort on the part of Jack Smith, and the other Democratic operatives at the department of Justice. This is nothing more than an attempt to criminalize being an opponent of the current Democratic president. Therefore, any shrieks of indignation at whatever legal maneuvering the Trump team does fall on deaf ears with me.

It is bizarre that Jack Smith, who normally would be a person a very little consequence, it suddenly drape with the power of the federal government, and believes he has the right to use that power to interfere with the election. The fact that so many are cheering him, tells me, the disrepute, the democracy in America has fallen into among those who prefer to get their way at all costs.

Now, maybe you think that’s awesome that this lawfare is being used against President Trump. You may think Donald Trump so evil and so unfit to be president that you would support any effort to keep him out of the White House.

It’s clear that they do not believe that they can beat him at the polls, so they are trying to beat him at the court. Whether you support that or not, I hope you are honest enough to at least admit that is what is going on. I await your response.

Here’s where that honesty part that I’m counting on, comes in.

I know… that you know

If you expect honesty, it might be helpful if you don't beg questions.

As for what you claim I know. Let me tell you, I know no such thing. It has probably something to do with me reading the actual indictments, and being aware of what was presented as evidence to the Grand Jury to end up in those indictments. I expect you didn't read it ,or are really aware. (Please note that I said expect, and not know, since I, unlike you don't presume to know what you know.)

And since I know what's in the indictments, I will give you some evidence that I've personally seen. And you can give me a reason why this is not "a legitimate charge"

I've seen a subpoena issued to Trump, to deliver to the DOJ, "all documents bearing classification markings." I've seen the document that Trump's lawyers gave, when they provided the DOJ with some such documents. Stating that they did a diligent search, and those documents were all of them. Then I saw transcripts of Cochrane, a current Trump lawyer, who declared before that Grand Jury that Trump said to Cochrane, he gave them all. He described what occurred in great detail. Then I saw the inventory what was seized during the search. It included hundreds of documents bearing classification markings, some located in his personal desk and even photographs of such documents. Mind there's much more equally compelling evidence for obstruction of justice and other crimes, but those basic facts suffice for the purpose.

Lying, so you can escape your obligation to comply with a Federal Subpoena is a textbook example of obstruction of justice. Now tell me by what legal reasoning that isn't criminal? (Again, note I say legal reasoning. Not "if I can come up with some appeal to hypocrisy by using some false equivalency.") I mean an argument you think a lawyer could use in court.

 

[Thanos]

The Constitution says nothing about judges having immunity but they do, gomer.

Your point, idiot??? What the hell does this have to do with anything? We are talking an ex-president, not about judges.

 

[forkup]

I don’t believe I accused you of dishonesty. I’m certain I did not in the post to which you are replying. In fact, I’m about to count on your honesty in responding to what I say next.

I can support him simply because that is another legal argument for him to make. And because I know the reason that he made the argument was specifically to thwart Jack Smith plan to have the trial begin at the beginning of the primary season. It worked. That particular part of the plan is down the tubes. I fully support sending it there.

Here’s where that honesty part that I’m counting on, comes in.

I know… that you know… That this is not some legitimate crime fighting effort on the part of Jack Smith, and the other Democratic operatives at the department of Justice. This is nothing more than an attempt to criminalize being an opponent of the current Democratic president. Therefore, any shrieks of indignation at whatever legal maneuvering the Trump team does fall on deaf ears with me.

It is bizarre that Jack Smith, who normally would be a person a very little consequence, it suddenly drape with the power of the federal government, and believes he has the right to use that power to interfere with the election. The fact that so many are cheering him, tells me, the disrepute, the democracy in America has fallen into among those who prefer to get their way at all costs.

Now, maybe you think that’s awesome that this lawfare is being used against President Trump. You may think Donald Trump so evil and so unfit to be president that you would support any effort to keep him out of the White House.

It’s clear that they do not believe that they can beat him at the polls, so they are trying to beat him at the court. Whether you support that or not, I hope you are honest enough to at least admit that is what is going on. I await your response.

Oh and it's not some "legal argument" he can make. Any legal argument has a potential to be precedent. This particular legal argument is not just bonkers on its face. It would be a highly dangerous precedent.

You don't think it's a problem that a guy who's running for president is simply stating that achieving that office puts him above the law from anything he does while in office. (By the way, he's also argued before in different context the office makes him immune for actions prior becoming president.)

Me personally, I find making those arguments disqualifying. For one thing an innocent man wouldn't NEED immunity from criminal prosecution. Nor would I need the power to self-pardon, another claim he has the dubious honor of being the first to include in his view on presidential power. A pardon by definition requires a crime. You can't pardon somebody who's innocent.

 

[forkup]

I don’t believe I accused you of dishonesty. I’m certain I did not in the post to which you are replying.

Are you really certain you didn't?

Another Democrat, shocked, shocked! Shocked that lawyers argue out of both sides of their mouth.

This is not implying I'm being intellectually dishonest? If not, what is it?

 

[Independent thinker]

Because the alternative is such a pile of shit.

That pile of shit ran the country much better than Biden has. But, thanks for your admission that Biden has torpedoed the US.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Thank you, for engaging the premise of the OP. You seem to be the only one actually willing to do so. And it takes courage I think. I make it a point to recognize somebody who doesn't dodge difficult questions.

Thanks. I did try to be responsive after giving the interesting subject considerable thought.

Now on to the answer.

Thanks. We can agree to disagree.

Having said that this particular memo I agree with.

I agree. A president needs to be able to carry out his duties without fear of prosecution hanging over his head, and like I said, the DOJ reports to the president - in other words, as the memo states, “[indictment] would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch”