598
So this means its open Trump hunting season for Biden, right? It is totally legal and cool for him to assassinate Trump, right??
Of course we all know they intend for this argument to only apply to Trump.
Stuff like this is what I wish would happen.
Like the german nazi party desperately wants more people to be evicted from Germany, I say great, evict the AfD politicians and their voters! Wooot! Everyone happy!
Right, when the right wing fuckos trot out their obviously bad-faith arguments, we should be taking to them to their logical fucking conclusions right the fuck away.
It would be beautiful to see the entire Republican wing of the house pissing themselves and losing their shit knowing that an assassin from Biden could get them at any moment. Especially after the first few drop and Biden just says "it's me, it's totally legal and cool, right?" Also making sure to drop the first 20-or-so at the same time so right after it happens the Dems have a majority in both the House and Senate so no Republican can actually bring a vote for impeachment.
They'd be screaming bloody murder because the only thing they actually care about is their own skins.
Nah, let them keep a majority in the house. They vote to impeach, the Senate acquits, then he goes for round two...
Trump is not a very good walker. Very weak steps. Maybe it will be a sort of accident? Is that the ruzzian way or what?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Here's a better question, Judge Pan.
Could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate unsympathetic judges, either of an appeals court or the Supreme Court itself, since that's an "official act?" Because that might be something worth considering.
This argument would, in fact, suggest that the president could order a judge assassinated. And I'm guessing the appeals court knows that.
Like every other grand ol' projection, I believe this should be interpreted as a threat of things to come, not academic speculation.
Then they're saying it would be legal if Biden assassinated Trump right now.
Either his actions were treason and the sentence is death or his actions as president were untouchable in which case the president can shoot him without reprise. What a dangerous precedent to set!
Sounds like these legal arguments are a win-win for anyone who isn't Trump then
load more comments
(1 replies)
“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That’s an official act–an order to Seal Team Six,” U.S. Circuit Judge Florence Pan asked Sauer.
“He would have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer replied, setting a pre-condition for such prosecution in Pan’s hypothetical.
Unless it's a Republican, he means.
This is their plan for every election, administrative, and legal matter: let Congress decide.
A body they can buy bribe and beleaguer.
This is their plan for every election, administrative, and legal matter: let Congress decide.
A body they can buy bribe and beleaguer.
Or “legally” assassinate opposing members before the impeachment vote.
“He would have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer replied, setting a pre-condition for such prosecution in Pan’s hypothetical.
It's so hilarious that this is the response. Just like Republicans "speedily" impeached Trump after he mounted an insurrection?
It's even worse as the President could dial up air strikes on the Capitol to kill them all and it's all very legal and very cool.
“He would have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,”
Then he could assassinate them all, continually, until Congress is packed with people so afraid they'll be killed if they step out of line and there's no legal recourse. Just like the Founding Fathers intended...
Obviously the intent of the founding fathers and the people is that insurrectionists cannot be permitted on a ballot, not by any officer of any court or state.
It's the same as the Fourth Amendment. If the prohibition on warrantless search and seizure has any meaning at all, it is a command to every law officer, attorney, and judge, as to how they must do their part of their job in the matter, and that rule is that: if the constable blunders, the criminal must go free. The remedy is implied by the text, because if it's not the text doesn't mean shit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
what the fuck
Man, why did Nixon even bother resigning? Why was Clinton or Trump even impeached? They were obviously immune from ever doing anything wrong, ever. The Presidency exists completely outside of the normal checks and balances in our government, the President can just do whatever they want.
Well being President is sort of like being a Star. And as well all know, if you're a Star they let you do it. Orange Julius was talking about underage pageant contestants at the time, but I think the same principle applies here.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The US really needs to sit down and decide what the president can and cannot do. It won't be the last time magats try this shit.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Completely fucking insane...
Pan reframed the question to include a hypothetical where a president ordered assassination and then was not impeached, and Sauer still hung on to "impeachment has to happen first."
So Biden hunting down the entire GOP House for sport is up for grabs, then. It's not a coup, it's part of his official duties!
This is exactly one of the scenarios that Jack Smith offered as an example of why this kind of immunity is ridiculous.
I'll just say that I have more hope and faith in Jack Smith than I was ever able to muster for fucking Robert Mueller, who had his own shady history with the railroading of Bruce Ivins over the Anthrax scare in the Bush era.
To my knowledge, despite the mountains of evidence to prove that Ivins was not "their man" the FBI continues to hold that they were correct.
Smith has proven himself to be a more serious contender than Mueller.
An individual allowed to do anything without consequence is a dictator, not a president.
And so after years upon years upon decades of rhetoric from Republicans warning about the growing power of the Executive and the abuses of the Executive by FDR...
... uh, nevermind all that apparently, if our guy is in charge he should be able to just unilaterally assasinate political rivals.
You know. Like anyone that would vote to impeach him. For assassinating political rivals.
This is literal baby brain logic that actual Elementary School Children could probably understand is stupid.
Hooray for living in Clown World, the dumbest possible timeline.
This is basically logic that can only possibly have come from serious QTard Syndrome, Terminal Stage. Its the only way possible for /the Storm/ to actually happen.
If we have to debate this much whether or not a President should stand trial for criminal charges, I think he did it.
So did the USA become a joke during 45's presidency or before?
Seal team six perched in the rafters during the state of the union address.
Biden: And now I will receive a round of applause from my good Republican colleagues. Clap, motherfuckers!
@Tremble @MicroWave Saddam Hussein: how a deadly purge of opponents set up his ruthless dictatorship https://theconversation.com/saddam-hussein-how-a-deadly-purge-of-opponents-set-up-his-ruthless-dictatorship-120748
load more comments
(1 replies)
Can a lawyer be disbarred for advocating for the dissolution of the Rule of Law?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Which is why it's a batshit insane idea.
Remember, his base sees this as strength.
They don't care about the means, they want a "strongman" to kill the Americans they see as their enemies for them.
Modern Republicans don't give a two shilling shit about democracy, they'd rather have an authoritarian so long as it's an authoritarian they're deluded into believing represents their interests.
Just in case anyone thinks these remarks might make him lose a single vote.
I agree, and at the same time I wonder what the current president could fix the issue with the former? I mean, the current president has immunity right? /s
Trump is literally scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to attorneys
load more comments
(2 replies)
Trump’s lead attorney D. John Sauer argued that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office in a Senate trial potentially would be subject to prosecution for those kinds of alleged crimes
load more comments
(1 replies)
Which law is that written in again?
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
598 points (98.2% liked)
News
23266 readers
3375 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS