Trumps "immunity" defence is punctured by the first question

[forkup]

Start with that guy isn't a Special Counsel, he's a Biden shill. Wait for it...OH SNAP!

I see. So, because you consider Jack Smith a "Biden shill" arguing that a president can kill political opponents is justified?

I'm still waiting for anyone to attempt it.

 

[Clipper]

Poll: Did Trump run out of the courtroom today like a scalded dog after the hearing because:

1. He soiled himself?

2. He didn't want Jack Smith to see him crying?

3. He needed to send out emails to the herd begging for cash because he knows that the Judges are going to hand his ass back to him on a silver platter?

 

[Crepitus]

I understand the sentiment. I don't like the suggestion. I don't care how batshit Republicans went. You don't even jest about killing political rivals.

I don't like the suggestion either but I'm a "do unto others first" kinda guy.

 

[Crepitus]

Does anyone really think Trump would use his position to persecute his opponents?

Nobody thinks for a second that he won't. Not even you.

Mostly because we already know he has.

 

[forkup]

I don't like the suggestion either but I'm a "do unto others first" kinda guy.

I'll give you a response I've given before.

This is my suggestion. Don't allow the whataboutism. Hang this around the neck of anyone defending Trump. This is an argument he's making. It's crazy, un-American, immoral and.... utterly indefensible. So, make them defend it. Don't give them a easy way out.

 

[MinTrut]

By the fact that he said he did it.

I shot Abraham Lincoln.

I did it, and I'd do it again.

I may now be murdered by the government based on this claim, correct?

Nor is typical jurisprudence applicable in war.

See above.

I love that Democrats love the War on Terror now btw.

If it was every single soldier in combat would be liable for murder.

Above.

Way to turn the argument.

No turn; this is your argument.

I'm not the one arguing that a president can kill political opponents.

A president can apparently kill anyone, and without consequence.

See the Obama presidency for examples.

You support this, I do not.

That's Trump.

That's Obama, and they didn't even need to be rivals.

Just inconvenient.

And I asked YOU to give a justification for it.

I don't support extra-judicial murder - I thought this was abundantly clear.

You DO support it, also abundantly clear.

Ironic, no?

Trying to make me do it in your stead is pretty original I have to say.

See above.

You asked me to justify the killing of a terrorist who freely admitted to several terrorist acts.

I killed Lincoln.

And Garfield.

McKinley too.

I can now be murdered by the USG without further ado, correct?

A killing preceded by a law signed by congress specifically citing those acts as a reason for war.

See above.

So again.

No again; we are where we've always been.

You support murder; I don't.

You obviously support Trump as the next president.

Irrelevant, but I'll be voting 3rd party or not at all.

Tell me why his view on presidential immunity is justified?

It's your view; you support murder depending on the target.

I don't.

Well, except for the trio I mention above - they were asking for it.

 

[Crepitus]

And did he challenge the election before or after the 19th January?

Both.

 

[whitehall]

Typical left wing desperate search for a provocative statement from the former president. Didn't Obama justify a drone strike on an American citizen in a foreign country that killed him and his son and a friend?

 

[MinTrut]

You are the second person in this OP laying out this particular scenario. And again, I completely understand the sentiment. However, you don't talk about killing your political opponent, even in jest.

This is my suggestion. Don't allow the whataboutism. Hang this around the neck of anyone defending Trump. This is an argument he's making. It's crazy, un-American, immoral and.... utterly indefensible. So, make them defend it. Don't give them a easy way out.

It's the argument YOU'RE making.

It's tragiclarious that you don't recognize it.

 

[MinTrut]

Typical left wing desperate search for a provocative statement from the former president. Didn't Obama justify a drone strike on an American citizen in a foreign country that killed him and his son and a friend?

Liberal not left wing.

Liberals rape the left.

But OTW, correct.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If this flies I think it's time for Joe Biden to say "bye bye" to tRump.

What are you threatening???

 

[MinTrut]

What are you threatening???

He's not threatening, he's cheerleading.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

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.

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

 

[Crepitus]

What are you threatening???

Me? Nothing.

 

[forkup]

I shot Abraham Lincoln.

I did it, and I'd do it again.

I may now be murdered by the government based on this claim, correct?

See above.

I love that Democrats love the War on Terror now btw.

Above.

No turn; this is your argument.

A president can apparently kill anyone, and without consequence.

See the Obama presidency for examples.

You support this, I do not.

That's Obama, and they didn't even need to be rivals.

Just inconvenient.

I don't support extra-judicial murder - I thought this was abundantly clear.

You DO support it, also abundantly clear.

Ironic, no?

See above.

I killed Lincoln.

And Garfield.

McKinley too.

I can now be murdered by the USG without further ado, correct?

See above.

No again; we are where we've always been.

You support murder; I don't.

Irrelevant, but I'll be voting 3rd party or not at all.

It's your view; you support murder depending on the target.

I don't.

Well, except for the trio I mention above - they were asking for it.

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.

None of it though applies here. 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.

So I'll give you an easier question. Do you support the concept of absolute presidential immunity?

 

[Thanos]

Blah blah blah, the Trump SCOTUS will bitch slap this Dem attack on democracy.

The "Trump SCOTUS".....you're obviously too stupid to understand how bad that is.

Justice is supposed to be blind, but that obviously isn't the case with the current SCOTUS.

Another nail in the coffin of U.S. democracy.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, they can impeach. They are not required to impeach.

That would have been the result if the impeachment ad led to a removal. It did not. Trump was acquitted.

Yes, I know Mitch is your go to for legal advice…

Given that he was the lead on the Impeachment in the Senate…he has to be

I love watching Republicans move the Goalpost when it comes to holding Trump accountable for Jan 6

 

[Thanos]

The judge’s question was ignorant.

A presidential act doesn’t suffice.

The law already says that it would have to be within the “outer boundaries” of the President’s authority. No President has any Constitutional authority to murder an opponent.

That's not what Trump's lawyer said today, imbecile.

 

[rightwinger]

That's not what Trump's lawyer said today, imbecile.

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