What do you think of this legal argument presented?

[Juxtapose]

I'm curious how many of you can comprehend why the president has immunity in such a fashion 🧐

Updates

+1 y

This is one of those questions where you better watch the video or you are going to look silly.

[AviatorTom]

The Presidential Immunity clause in the Constitution is there to allow the President to do what's necessary to protect the country. Without it, George Washington, the first President, could have been prosecuted for directing the killing of British soldiers during the Revolutuonsry War. More recently, Barack Obama could be prosecuted for directing the assassination of Osama Bin Laden without it.

Trump's lawyer was responding to a question from a Supreme Court justice. The President could be prosecuted for ordering an assassination, but not in the courts. He could be prosecuted in Congress via Impeachment.

As much as this sounds weird, the law is correct, and this is a valid legal argument.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded @OddBeMe

This is what I am talking about.

[normalice]

Except during his impeachment his lawyers argued that since he was no longer president it was a matter for the criminal courts. Can't have it both ways 🤷

[AviatorTom]

@normalice You can have it both ways. Lawyers argue whatever they think will work, making a legal argument that sometimes involves them talking out both sides of their mouth simultaneously.
During the impeachment trial, they argued that he was a regular citizen now, no longer President, and Congress doesn't have the power to impeach a regular citizen.
Now that it's in the courts, they argue that the crime he's charged with happened when he was President, and the only way he could be prosecuted was be via Impeachment, which he already was, and found not guilty. The double-indemnity clause might apply here... he can't be impeached twice for the same offense, and the courts don't have jurisdiction over the President.

[normalice]

He wasn't found not guilty because not guilty isn't a ruling in the senate. He was simply found not ineligible to run again and the reasoning many republican senators said when they cast their no vote was that they agreed it is a matter for the criminal court.

But it doesn't matter, really. Anyone who can be convinced of the insane idea that their leader should be above the law is going to stay convinced until they do some soul searching, which no one can force you to do. Ultimately, the case will not be decided on the internet but by the Supreme Court, where republicans have a super majority. I anticipate them punting and delaying the case as much as possible so that if Trump wins the case just goes away and if trump loses hopefully no one will care whether or not Trump lives his impotent twilight years in prison. I would be more or less shocked if they find him culpable - not because he obviously is (not even you are arguing he is innocent, only that he should get away with it ) but because it would require two republicans crossing party lines to vote for reason and that is traditionally political suicide.

[AviatorTom]

@normalice I never said a leader should be above the law. I am discussing the legal implications of this situation, which are very interesting. We must all understand that the American judicial system is based on precedent, and there is no precedent for this, hence all kinds of legal theories are put forward, as they should. Ultimately, one of them will win out and become the precedent for future situations like this.

[normalice]

My hope is it so devastating to the acxused that there will be no future situations like this..

[DJB72]

It's well argued. The concept of presidential immunity is a tricky one. If the left has its way and manages to charge Trump for investigation of possible election fraud then what's stopping someone from bringing charges of murder against Obama for killing Bin Laden? The weapon was SEAL team 6, but the order was from the President and the argument could be made that Bin Laden was denied due process.

Obviously that's an extreme situation and unlikely, but by taking Trump off the ballot when he's not actually been convicted of treason is risky at best as it can open up a whole Pandora's Box that Biden should really be wanting to keep shut

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

One political party up against the other, they don't make sense.

[exitseven]

I looked at the original source material for this. It was totally taken out of context to make Trump look bad. If this and a bunch of phony indictments is all the democrats have to run on I suggest none of them make deposits on high end DC condos.

[Juxtapose]

I even see headlines where it says that Trump said some random racist thing like black people shouldn't be president or some crap. It's so obnoxious how the mainstream media is against Trump but people are waking up.

The Democrats are really going to have to cheat extra hard to win this time!

[exitseven]

I believe they think thay have it all figured out. Nothing they ha e done so far has worked. I think they are winding up some psycho that will try and put a bullet in him

[goaded]

There is nothing in the constitution that provides immunity for a president. Nothing.

The Supreme Court decided in 1982 in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that they have immunity from civil lawsuits while president.

Tim Pool is not a reliable source of information, let alone legal opinion.

Even Jonathan Turley thinks Trump lost his immunity appeal.

"Turley... admitted, “I did not come away thinking the panel was likely to rule with the former president.” The only question seemed to be how the panel would dispense with the appeal. “But what is clear is that it won’t take much time,” he said."

[Juxtapose]

You don't understand the constitution, dangerously so.

Under your interpretation, Obama could have been tried for killing Bin Laden without due process.

[Juxtapose]

Presidents will fear lawfare and have their hands tied.

When the next Obama kills the next Bin Laden, he will be prosecuted by the Republicans.

Baaaad idea.

[goaded]

Quote the part of the constitution that talks about presidential immunity, then.

Sane people can see that some "crimes" committed by a person who has been chosen to have the power to destroy the planet should be treated like you or I exceeding the speed limit in a safe manner.

Other crimes, like trying to end democracy altogether, are far beyond any reasonable line for a president to cross.

I'd have preferred the line to be on the other side of Bush's torture regime and starting the Iraq war under false pretences, but here we are.

[Juxtapose]

constitution.findlaw.com/.../...d-civil-suits.html

This is a lot more murky than I thought and legal precedent is going to be set with this.

Presidential immunity is important though otherwise the president is going to constantly second-guess themselves and they are going to be constantly open to lawfare. Barack Obama could be tried for denying Osama Bin Laden due process.

And please stop with your hysterics of democracy ending from a glorified trespass violation. We all know you can't topple governments just by sitting in a building anymore when all this shit is operated remotely xD

And really, some insurrection when only a protester died that day and all those people who could have had guns and overwhelmed security with lead and fire didn't.

Frankly it's the most toothless insurrection I have ever heard of and anyone who says it's an insurrection is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

[goaded]

"Presidential immunity covers actions relating to the official duties of the President, including those in the "outer perimeter" of those duties. Immunity does not extend to unofficial conduct, criminal conduct, and conduct occurring prior to entering office."

Please stop ignoring everything that led up to the attack on the Capitol; it was just the last desparate roll of the dice in a conspiracy to steal the presidency. It was planned in advance, they lied to authorities about what they were planning, they brought an armed mob to the Capitol, and they had 147 Republican lawmakers on the inside who were willing to ignore their oaths of office and pretend the election wasn't fairly run, even in states run by Republicans.

[Juxtapose]

That's a fucking lie and you know it. If they really wanted to have an insurrection, they would have armed the mob properly and they would have gunned down security and then people within the government would have to be in on it.

You can't tell me that a glorify trespass violation where only a protester died that day is an insurrection.

The fact that you think 147 lawmakers would actually be for a coupe when Trump literally urge the protesters to be peaceful beforehand.. that's cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Yes, Trump tweeted that he wanted the protesters to be peaceful before it happened but then his tweet got censored. You can use the way back machine to verify that.

And why did Nancy Pelosi refused to get the national guard when Trump desperately wanted them?

It was a setup to frame Trump.

[goaded]

No, those are facts. There's a reason Pence refused to be taken away by a Secret Service detail; he wasn't sure they'd bring him back.

If the mob had started shooting, there's no force on Earth that would have stopped the National Guard from deploying. We know that the Oath Keepers had caches of weapons in the hope that Trump would tell them they could use them.

No, Trump didn't tweet "that he wanted the protesters to be peaceful before it happened"; we have records of what tweets were sent, when they were sent, and which were blocked; he tweeted "peacefully" only once they were in the building and a quarter hour after he'd tweeted to tell the mob that Pence was to blame.

I've shown you the links. If you've got one on the way back machine, post it.

[Juxtapose]

He sent it at about 2:00 p. m.. some time after the mob was escorted into the Capitol by the police I imagine.

Those guns came from feds and Jan 6 is a hoax.

[goaded]

You just can't accept facts, can you?

[Juxtapose]

The feeling is mutual.

If you want to know how I feel about the ANY government, see George Carlin.

It's all a big fucking club, and you and I ain't in it!

[goaded]

At least you're admitting that you were wrong that Trump sent a tweet saying be peaceful before it happened, and that it wasn't censored (why would it be? tweets were removed for inciting violence). It's a start.

Now, about those guns: "Terry Cummings showed jurors an AR-15 firearm and an orange box for ammunition that he contributed to the so-called quick reaction force the Oath Keepers had staged at the hotel outside of Washington in case they needed weapons.

“I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” said Cummings, a veteran who joined the Oath Keepers in Florida in 2020. "
apnews.com/.../capitol-siege-florida-virginia-conspiracy-government-and-politics-6ac80882e8cf61af36be6c46252ac24c

Hundreds of people have been convicted for their crimes on Jan 6, either pleading guilty or found guilty at trial. That's a hell of a lot of jurors that were convinced it wasn't "a hoax".
abcnews.go.com/.../story?id=106140326

[Juxtapose]

He actually was censored since his whole account was suspended dude.

That's because they were presented the case in a very biased way and they were not shown that the FBI incited such a thing. They literally supplied them with weapons and the FBI were there by the bus loads.

[goaded]

Trump's account was suspended for encouraging violence, and not until after the attack. There is no evidence that "the FBI incited such a thing", mostly because they didn't, nor did they bus is confidential informants because that would totally defeat the object of them being secret from other people in the groups.

The Oath Keepers brought their own guns to the border. It's established fact.

[DryGermanGuy]

It's so obvious that the kid with the silly hat is no legal practitioner in the way he wants to misunderstand the law. Now here is actual attorney and former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner explaining the legal situation in great detail:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/svt_z-l12HY

[Juxtapose]

This is so simple I don't understand how people don't get this.

The president is only answerable to congress, not regular law enforcement. The founding fathers put this in place specifically because they feared and anticipated lawfair in politics.

Biden could go outside and shoot someone in the head and be completely immune from regular law enforcement. But obviously Congress will quickly impeach him and then he will face the full force of the law.

[goaded]

Not if he resigned first.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded he would still be impeached for his crime during his presidency.

[goaded]

Didn't Trump claim that you couldn't impeach him once he was out of office?

[RainbowMarinade]

Some of us just can’t listen to Tim Pool.
I have tried. But when I saw him literally orgasm while reviewing election videos, I was done.
I will not give the guy one click.

[Juxtapose]

Uhh.. you are sexualizing something that is not sexual and that's kind of creepy dude.

[RainbowMarinade]

@Juxtapose
C’mon. I’m sure you saw the video of the election workers pulling cases out from under the table. He got so excited by what he thought he saw, he creamed a little bit.
You know it 😉😂

[Juxtapose]

You know what? I had a friend that grabbed at his crotch and said he was getting hard when he saw the Bangles losing in football so maybe you're onto something xD

[normalice]

Trump has been openly campaigning on being a dictator and if that's what the people want then that's what we deserve. Of course he doesn't need to kill his political rivals - he can just ignore them.

[Juxtapose]

I can tell you didn't watch the video.

[Juxtapose]

You're going to look really stupid if you don't watch at least 4 minutes into the video to understand what they are talking about.

[normalice]

You could just summarize it. I don't want to give your sources free clicks.

[Juxtapose]

If you're that petty and malicious then I'm not giving you the time of day.

[normalice]

It not pettiness and malice doesn't even make sense, since you have been done no harm. You have simply shown you can't bring yourself to criticize the fabricated grievances of far right media. So, I assume that's what you have brought and refuse to give it a click unless your summary suggests otherwise.

[MysticDevice]

Did you listen to the video or just read the thumbnail?

[Juxtapose]

I asked you the question first.

[MysticDevice]

The president has immunity to prevent political rivals from simply having them charged and arrested so the opposition can run unopposed. Should the president actually have a rival assassinated for political gains the president must then be impeached, a relatively simple process, at which point charges may then be pressed.

It is not a mechanism in which politicians are immune from just killing off their opponents.

[Juxtapose]

This is so simple I don't understand how people don't get this.

The president is only answerable to congress, not regular law enforcement. The founding fathers put this in place specifically because they feared and anticipated lawfair in politics.

Biden could go outside and shoot someone in the head and be completely immune from regular law enforcement. But obviously Congress will quickly impeach him and then he will face the full force of the law.

[OddBeMe]

Why do you fucks admire this shitheel so much? If Biden actually did have Trump killed it would be an even bigger Jan 6 riot.

[Juxtapose]

This has nothing to do with admiration. Whatever privileges Trump gets, Biden gets in full with no exception.

There's a reason why Richard Nixon answered to Congress and not his local police department or the FBI.

[Juxtapose]

Presidential immunity is incredibly important to prevent lawfare and I want every single Democratic president to have it just as I want Trump to have it.

[DryGermanGuy]

You still don't get it do you? Nixon only escaped prosecution by resigning and a follow-up pardon from Gerald Ford. An impeachment and an indictment are different, parallel acts of justice. The impeachment removes from office, the indictment punishes criminal acts.

Quote:
Documents released by the National Archives include a draft presentment from a federal Grand Jury. Dated February 1, 1974, the draft presentment states that the president “unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly” conspired to “commit offenses against the United States.

The six page document also shows the Grand Jury planned to charge Nixon with bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and obstruction of a criminal investigation.

But as Congress prepared to impeach him, Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974.
A month later, President Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, protecting him from criminal prosecution.

[DryGermanGuy]

edition.cnn.com/.../index.html

Quote:
But the panel was having none of it, refusing to take that entirely novel argument seriously. A key problem with the argument is that the impeachment judgment clause says the opposite of what Sauer claims. It states that “the Party convicted [in an impeachment trial] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” In other words, the clause enshrines the rule that presidents can still be prosecuted even if they’re convicted of impeachment, not that presidents can be prosecuted only if they’re first convicted by the Senate.

[Juxtapose]

@DryGermanGuy no, presidents are immune from normal prosecution. They are only answerable to congress.

Otherwise Obama could have been tried for his assassination of Bin Laden without due process.

[Juxtapose]

"the Party convicted [in an impeachment trial] shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

The law covers presidential immunity pretty handily.

[OddBeMe]

Well I guess we’ll find out. They aren’t immune from civil suits. Trumps gotta pay the NYT $400k

[OddBeMe]

But if a president gets impeached he’s not out in jail right? Or even convicted of anything. He’s just out of office.

[Juxtapose]

Nixon would have lost his immunity and then gotten fucked from what I understand. Presidents are less liable so people like Obama won't be prosecuted for going after Bin Laden without due process.

George Washington could have been prosecuted for killing British soldiers.

[Juxtapose]

Frankly though, SCOTUS will end up having the final say and they have more right wingers. Trump has already won.

[OddBeMe]

And that’s the best option to you? An unassailable president?

[OddBeMe]

Maybe I should ask why do you right wing fucks always want a dictator?

[Juxtapose]

Obama killed American civilians without trial but Trump is a dictator? Lul

No, impeachment is sufficient.

Under YOUR rules Obama would be tried for killing Bin Laden without a trial.

[OddBeMe]

This is about what you want. Obama did kill an Al quaeda American without due process. I would be cool with a trial, where he can argue the war on terror.

You on the other hand, want a DICTATOR.

[Juxtapose]

You want a president who is going to be too scared to do anything because of lawfare -_-

And no, the president can be impeached and is answerable to Congress even in the most generous interpretation of presidential immunity.

[Juxtapose]

A dictator straight up does not give a fuck about Congress or Parliament.

[OddBeMe]

You should read more about how dictators get started. Usually democratically.

[Notherndude84]

The example was used in a hypothetical scenario brought forth by a judge. It isn’t meant to be taken literally.

[Dargil]

I agree with it.