https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-lawyer-argues-presidents-can-order-seal-team-6-to-assassinate-rivals-in-stunning-appeals-exchange/ JUDGE PAN: Could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That’s an official act, an order to Seal Team Six.
JOHN SAUER: He would have to be and would speedily be, you know, uh, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution–
JUDGE PAN: But there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?
JOHN SAUER: Chief Justice’s opinion in Marbury against Madison and, uh, uh, and our Constitution and the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause all clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was not.
JUDGE PAN: I asked you a yes, no, yes or no question. Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution.
JOHN SAUER: If he were impeached and convicted first.
JUDGE PAN: So your answer is no.
JOHN SAUER: My answer is qualified. Yes. There’s a political process that will have to occur under the structure of our Constitution, which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate in these exceptional cases, as the OLC memo number itself points out from the Department of Justice, you’d expect a speedy impeachment conviction.
But what the founders are much more worried about than using criminal prosecution to discipline presidents was what, uh, James Madison calls in Federalist number 47, the, you know, the new-fangled and artificial treasons. They were much more concerned about the abuse of the criminal process for political purposes, to disable the presidency from factions and political opponents. And, of course, that’s exactly what we see in this case.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
JUDGE PAN: I’ve asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could be taken by a president and could be considered official acts. And I’ve asked you, would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if he’s not impeached or committed? And your answer, your yes or no answer is no. JOHN SAUER: I believe I said qualified yes. If he’s impeached, convicted first. JUDGE PAN: Okay. So he’s not impeached or conviction and convicted. Look, put that aside. You’re saying a president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival? JOHN SAUER: Sale of military secrets strikes me as something that might not be held to be an official act. The sale of pardons is something that’s come up historically and was not executed. JUDGE PAN: Your brief says that communicating with an executive branch, agencies, an official act and communicating with a foreign government, it’s an official act. That’s what presidents do.
Anonymous
It's like whoever writes these mediaite articles can't read. Anyone else notice the left shills have been working twice as hard here since roughly Jan 1, on this federal election year? I noticed this same thing on /b/.. well, half the board has noticed it, really
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1254899 >No argument >"HURP DURP LEFT SHILLS" conservacope is getting really low quality around here lately
Anonymous
>>1254899 That's the transcript of the exchange.
It's on tape as well dumbass.
Anonymous
>>1254914 Yeah. I know. We can all read it
>JUDGE PAN: So your answer is no. >JOHN SAUER: My answer is qualified. Yes. He said a president is criminally liable for official conduct although it requires a different conviction process.
Let's not stop you Dan Abrams shills from lying tho, eh?
We can all read the exchange, anon. This is another shit thread you should feel bad about.
Hard working leftist shill seesitsself
Hard working leftist shill seesitsself Wed 10 Jan 2024 00:57:02 No. 1254925 Report >>1254899 >It's like whoever writes these mediaite articles can't read. What it really says:On 1/6/20, there was trouble at the Capitol
What you see when you read it: On 1/6/20, an insurrection by a group of ignorant savages was crushed by our brave FBI plants.
You loonies have some sort of distorted reality filter, almost schizophrenic in nature.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1254897 trump so cray cray
Hard working leftist shill seesitsself
Hard working leftist shill seesitsself Wed 10 Jan 2024 01:05:02 No. 1254928 Report >>1254916 >But what the founders are much more worried about than using criminal prosecution to discipline presidents was what, uh, James Madison calls in Federalist number 47, the, you know, the new-fangled and artificial treasons. >They were much more concerned about the abuse of the criminal process for political purposes political purposes?
So prosecuting tRump for the 1/6 insurrection/riot is political?
BS
It's worse than sending a death squad to kill a political opponent.
It's sending a death squad to kill the USA
Anonymous
>>1254916 his answer was yes, he can be politically convicted. his silence on whether a president can be criminally convicted for personally motivated assassination is quite telling though
Anonymous
>>1254930 Because he knows they can be being citizens of the US and all that. They're seriously arguing that the executive branch is the strongest, most protected branch of government when it's clearly the weakest. Cart blanche immunity is not what this country was founded on, and the disingenuous argumentation from Trump's lawyers is just sad now. I voted for the dude twice, but this is just pathetic.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1254928 all tRump wants is to delay everything. His Plan is to win in November and then have the charges removed. His only problem is Ga, whereby State charges are not able to be removed by Executive Branch.
Self-pardoning is exactly what a dictator would do. If he was elected, he could literally order the military to kill Biden, and then pardon himself for the crime.
If America decides to install a dictator through the presidential election, we deserve what we get.
GA will go away as well if tRump wins. It is not in the best interest of the country to have out POTUS in jail or being tried. Hurts our country.
NONE of the charges in Smith's case involve any standard in the 14th amendment
He isn't charged by Smith with anything listed in the 14th.Sec.III Not rebellion, insurrection, not giving aid and comfort...not even incitement of an insurrection.
Nothing says a convicted felon can't run and hold the office of POTUS. He can't vote, but he can hold office.
But He would not be able to take his oath while incarcerated. Article II, Section One states tRump has to take the oath to assume the office. No one will be issuing the oath of office to anyone incarcerated, no less if found guilty of charges related to an insurrection. When Ford pardoned Nixon that was not best for the country. It was status quo and good for the brand of American exceptionalism in the "good old boy" network but the people of this country were sick of a war promulgated by a criminal who got away with the attempt to cheat on his opponents. And America at the time remained at odds with Democracies around the world, a culmination of post WWII polices supporting business and imperialistic acquisitions rather then the force of planetary Democracy
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1254916 The qualification was that the premise of the question were different. Which is the same as saying no.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>JUDGE PAN: I asked you a yes, no, yes or no question. Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution. >JOHN SAUER: If he were impeached and convicted first. >JUDGE PAN: So your answer is no. If I was as much of a faggot as
>>1254916 I'd just kill myself.
Republicunts need to lie, its a compulsion
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1254897 Trump is such a pussy
Hard working leftist shill
>>1254988 >1/6/21 Thank you
A day in infamy which because I'm not even an American citizen, I have no need to remember except as a Hard working leftist shill but still I have egg on my face.
7/12/41
9/11/01
1/6/21
Why do Americans prioritize days of INFAMY?
Apart from Major Holidays
I know American:
d-day(June 6, 44)
1492 Columbus(no day)
armistice day(Remembrance Day) (Veterans Day) Nov 11/1918
1776 jul/4
That's it.
and the day of infamy that all forget July 16, 1945 Trinity-BOOM!(my birthday, but not the yr)
not the dates the bombs dropped on Japan in '45
I'm working hard, here
Anonymous
>literally written into the constitution that you can't convict a president for official actions unless you remove them office first >democrat judges are unironically trying to use incredulity as an argument as to why the president shouldn't be charged I hate democrats so much.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255018 Why do you care Ivan?
Anonymous
>>1255024 >literally written into the constitution that you can't convict a president for official actions unless you remove them office first [citation needed]
Also Trump isn't president.
Anonymous
>>1255024 You hate Democrats because you don't understand the constitution or how laws work kek
Anonymous
>>1255039 Article II, Section 4
>"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." tl;dr you can't criminally convict a president without first successfully impeaching them and removing from office, which the democrats didn't do.
>Also Trump isn't president. Trump is being charged for the actions he took while he had presidential immunity.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255041 kek..
you prove his point
Anonymous
>>1255041 Nta but you people are narrow sighted retards.
I have literally watched your type reverse your beliefs 180degrees because your DNC propaganda tells you to do so.
Major things too, like your ideas on illegal immigration for example.
You people are NPCs.
But I digress. This lawyer is arguing that in official acts, presidents have immunity which is literally true; if we were talking about anyone except the president, this is called qualified immunity. It's called presidential immunity in this case because it's called out in the constitution, it's not the result of a judicial ruling.
If the presidential immunity clause didn't exist, Obama is literally guilty of homicide for the murder of Anwar Al-Aulaqi.
But it was official business, that's why he's not. Criminal liability for the act would need to be established by a Senate trial
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255082 How do you get this confused?
Anonymous
>>1255051 You're too retarded to summarize a sentence.
>doesn't say you can't criminally convict a president >Trump isn't president anyway >since he's already not president, anythign about removing him doesn't matter Presidential Immunity doesn't cover crimes. It covers legitimate presidential duties.
Hint: legitimate presidential duties don't include siccing a mob on the capitol based on election lies after being told repeatedly by everyone around him that the election wasn't stolen
Anonymous
>>1255153 >Presidential Immunity covers legitimate presidential duties. That is the exact same fucking argument that the lawyer made in OP.
I guess we are all in agreement then.
Anonymous
>>1255082 Today I learned its legal for Biden to send Seal Team 6 down to congress and kill all Republicans, and have them spread out and sweep the country to kill Trump and all the other Republicans.
This is perfectly acceptable Presidential conduct and they'd be fine, not screeching about political genocide.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255156 >I guess we are all in agreement then. Excellent, the criminal trials can keep going forward because, as you've agreed with me, crimes aren't legitimate presidential duties.
Thank you for your concession
Anonymous
>>1255158 Libtranny fantasy on full display. You won't do shit and you won't ever be a woman either.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255209 why are you guys unironically terrorists
Anonymous
>>1255153 >It covers legitimate presidential duties. Presidential immunity applies for the entire duration that the president is sitting in office anon.
We also don't punish people for crimes retroactively, like when a new law is made, so Trump would be in the clear if not for activist judges.
Anonymous
>>1255220 >Presidential immunity applies for the entire duration that the president is sitting in office anon Only official business.
What trump and his lawyer are arguing is he was operating in official capacity as the president.
And what liberals are arguing is that orange man bad I don't get it, orange man just bad, ok?
Anonymous
>>1255221 >Only official business. Which is literally everything he does while existing as POTUS. Because everything he does carries the full weight of the executive branch.
He doesn't magically stop being president the moment he goes to bed each night.
Anonymous
>>1255223 Nah but going to bed isn't official business.
It's like how a cop gets immunity when he's working in official capacity, but not if they are off the clock at a bar drinking
Same thing here. Trumps lawyers are contesting he acted in official capacity, the liberals are contesting they don't know what he's talking about, lmao what even is the constitution, orange man bad, ok!?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255224 >Same thing here. Trumps lawyers are contesting he acted in official capacity, the liberals are contesting they don't know what he's talking about, lmao what even is the constitution, orange man bad, ok!? It speaks very poorly of your critical thinking abilities when you're incapable of representing opposition opinion in good faith. Democrats are arguing that the steps he took to overturn the election results were not taken in his official capacity of the president. Their argument is that by purposefully and maliciously attempting to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power he violated his oath to the constitution, therefore acting outside of the scope of official presidential duties. You can agree or disagree with that point all you want but the ridiculous strawmanning just makes you look too hysterical and partisan to talk about politics like an adult.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255223 So you agree that Biden could order the army to kill every single Republicunt, and that would be legal.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255051 >tl;dr you can't criminally convict a president without first successfully impeaching them and removing from office That literally doesn't mention criminal conviction.
Anonymous
>>1255051 >Trump is being charged for the actions he took while he had presidential immunity. That literally doesn't mention presidential immunity. Also even if had had presidential immunity, it would have lapsed once he was no longer president.
The presidency cannot be an exemption from criminal law for any acts committed during it in perpetuity or else the mere act of electing someone president would break bedrock legal doctrine. It's a fundamental principle of law that you can't be immune from crimes you haven't committed yet, so presidential immunity, if it is a thing, cannot extend in perpetuity.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255224 and also not if the cop is breaking the law, regardless of if he is doing it to further what he is doing in his official capacity. i.e. crimes are illegal
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255221 >And what liberals are arguing is that orange man bad I disagree
Anonymous
>>1255224 >It's like how a cop gets immunity when he's working in official capacity That's fucking qualified immunity and only from civil suits personally targeting them and only for conduct that hasn't explicitly been ruled illegal for cops to do.
Trump's facing fucking criminal charges.
Also, beyond all that bullshit, qualified immunity ONLY APPLIES TO STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.
Anonymous
>>1255241 >Trump's facing fucking criminal charges. oh no!!!! are you literally shaking right now????
Anonymous
>>1255245 >no refutation is this post your formal submission of concession?
Anonymous
>>1255247 your mom submitted and conceded last night
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255248 i would've said cumceded but you do you faggot
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1254931 whats it like being wrong? the president is literally above the law. if he wants to do literally anything, then patriotic americans will help him do that, and everyone else is a traitor that must be put down NOW
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255245 >are you literally shaking right now???? No. Why? Did Trump's fat ass slip and fall or something?
Anonymous
>>1254897 If the President assassinated a political rival they either would cover it up not to appear as an assassination or blame it on some patsy.
What kind of dumb questioning is this? Amd they'd have mossad do it not seal team six.
Anonymous
>>1255273 >What kind of dumb questioning is this? The questioning is meant to challenge Trump's lawyers argument that attempting to subvert a legal election is within the scope of presidential duties, thus making it immune from criminal prosecution. The entire argument boils down to what actions can and cannot be qualified as official presidential actions. The general offensive argument is that it sets an insane precedent to suggest that the president can do literally anything, say "I was acting as the president" then escape any prosecution. The prosecution's argument is that Trump's actions violated his oath to the constitution, making him not immune. The defense's arguments is that Trumps fake elector scheme and pressuring state election officials to change the vote falls under his presidential duties, making him immune. You're welcome.
Anonymous
Trump was a successful stress test of our constitution. We failed horribly. We allowed Trump to walk all over the constitution. Now he will be made an example of and we build back better.
Anonymous
>>1255337 Assassination is generally an act illegal by treaty but still done by nations. Spying is also internationally illegal, but every nation does it.
The line of questioning is not relevant to the questions at hand. It is a hypothetical tangent. And yes the president and the DoJ have a keen interest in election legitimacy and transparency, as does the legislature.
>We assert banana >Oh what about oranges and potatoes! Hah you're btfo by our random bullshit that has no logic! Anonymous
>>1255339 Impeachment was the constitutional process and Trump was acquitted. This is double jeopardy because you don't even want voters to have the choice.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255380 >The line of questioning is not relevant to the questions at hand. The line of questioning is literally just fucking argumentum ad absurdum. "You are claiming A. B logically follows from A. B is some insane bullshit. Therefore you are claiming some insane bullshit. Therefore ~A."
If the president's official acts can't be crimes, that would include assassinations of political rivals. Since assassinations of political rivals can't not be crimes because that would be insane batshit, official acts can be crimes.
If you claim an absolute, everything that follows from that absolute must be true, or your claim is false.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255383 >This is double jeopardy He wasn't impeached for any of the crimes he's charged. In no small part because impeachment is a political process that doesn't include formal criminal charges.
Also impeachment risks neither life nor limb, so it's doubtful you couldn't be impeached for the same shit twice even if that's what we were talking about, which we aren't.
Anonymous
>>1255236 >That literally doesn't mention presidential immunity. He can only be convicted after he is successfully impeached, and the US does not charge US citizens with crimes which were previously considered to not be crimes.
Besides that, the US government does not charge or convict presidents of crimes for actions while they were president, because that would interfere with their presidential duties, e.g make them hesitate before authorizing military operations.
Anonymous
>>1255427 >He can only be convicted after he is successfully impeached The "convicted" referenced in the passage is conviction in the Senate following impeachment...as a condition of removal from office.
It has literally fuck all to do with criminal process which is not mentioned *at all*.
>the US does not charge US citizens with crimes which were previously considered to not be crimes The argument being made is not that every action the president takes isn't a crime, but that the president is immune from prosecution for any crimes committed during their time in office in perpetuity.
If the actions weren't crimes in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You can't be indicted for non-crimes.
>Besides that, the US government does not charge or convict presidents of crimes for actions while they were president Yes, because of DoJ policy with zero basis in law. And beyond that, immunity from prosecution while in office is fucking irrelevant ONCE THEY'RE OUT OF OFFICE. People also aren't tried in absentia, but leaving the country doesn't fucking give you lifelong immunity from prosecution for illegal shit you did.
Anonymous
>>1255493 >It has literally fuck all to do with criminal process which is not mentioned *at all*. It is outlining the only process by which a president can actually be convicted, which first requires impeachment and removal from office.
>You can't be indicted for non-crimes. The president cannot be indicted for past actions which were historically not considered crimes, either. That is a violation of due process and the fifth amendment.
>Yes, because of DoJ policy with zero basis in law. You must be joking.
They are literally the ones who determine who is charged with federal crimes, which sets precedent going forward.
Presidential immunity existed for fifty years precisely because the DoJ refused to charge sitting presidents with a crime.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255383 >This is double jeopardy because I don't know how the constitution works Anonymous
Quoted By:
Lumpy Trumpies BTFO
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255051 I don't see the term presidential immunity anywhere in the constitution. Why are you turning the presidency into a dictatorship?
Anonymous
>>1255514 >which first requires impeachment and removal from office where does the law say that?
Anonymous
>>1255541 Don't worry, Republicunts will drop this once they realize it invalidates their lies about Hunter
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1255619 um.. it doesn't exist! it's russian disinformation! it's not really hunter's laptop! it's not a laptop at all, it's an external drive! it was stolen illegally!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255626 hiding in plain sight, are we?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1255541 The impeachment clause.
Anonymous
>>1255735 You are very loudly misunderstanding the difference between impeachment and criminal conviction in context to presidential duties.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255737 The impeachment clause outlines when and where a president can be convicted, retard. It's literally in the text.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1255735 the impeachment clause gives congress the authority to impeach for crimes. It doesn't say anywhere that that is a prerequisite for being tried for crimes
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1254897 Do it then, faggot