Trump Again Claiming Right To Assassinate Rivals

[Revoltingest]

Trump’s Lawyer Tries to Convince a Stunned Sotomayor: President Has Immunity to Order Assassinations of Rivals

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Trump lawyer John Sauer had a stunning exchange over presidential immunity when it comes to the assassination of political rivals.

www.mediaite.com

Excerpted....
SOTOMAYOR: Now I think. What? And then your, answer, below, I’m going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it, if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or order someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity?

Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical. What we can see that could well be an official act.

SOTOMAYOR: He could. And why? Because he’s doing it for personal reasons. He’s not doing it. Like President Obama is alleged to have done it to protect the country from a terrorist. He’s doing it for personal gain. And isn’t that the nature of the allegations here, that he’s not doing them, doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility? He’s doing it for personal gain.

Sauer: I agree with that characterization of the indictment. And that confirms immunity, because the characterization is that there’s a series of official acts that were done for an honorable.

The exchange continued and turned to a discussion over the distinction between absolute and qualified immunity as it applies to the Executive Branch, or in particular, the President of the United States.

 

[Revoltingest]

More reading on the subject...

Trump compared to dangerous 'king who could do no wrong' in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is reviewing Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case on Thursday.

www.the-express.com

 

[Pogo]

More reading on the subject...

Trump compared to dangerous 'king who could do no wrong' in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is reviewing Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case on Thursday.

www.the-express.com

And the upshot appears to be that the conservatives want to throw a win to Trump by saying, let some lower court decide which parts might be immune and come back to us at some future date.

 

[Spice]

More reading on the subject...

Trump compared to dangerous 'king who could do no wrong' in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is reviewing Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from prosecution in his 2020 election interference case on Thursday.

www.the-express.com

"Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two of Trump’s three high court appointees, suggested that former presidents might have some immunity and that in this case, lower courts might have to sort out whether that applied to Trump. That could further delay a trial."

To me, this says they're scared of Trump's retaliation threats. Or either they're incompetent appointees to start with, which I thoroughly agree on for one of them.

 

[Pogo]

"Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two of Trump’s three high court appointees, suggested that former presidents might have some immunity and that in this case, lower courts might have to sort out whether that applied to Trump. That could further delay a trial."

To me, this says they're scared of Trump's retaliation threats. Or either they're incompetent appointees to start with, which I thoroughly agree on for one of them.

They took a case they knew they shouldn't have taken and now they want to disavow it while giving the win to the noisy conservatives by making a lower court do the work. SCOTUS is not worried about threats, they are there for life, they are worried about their future reputations which are already mud.

 

[Spice]

They took a case they knew they shouldn't have taken and now they want to disavow it while giving the win to the noisy conservatives by making a lower court do the work. SCOTUS is not worried about threats, they are there for life, they are worried about their future reputations which are already mud.

But I believe it wouldn't take much of a stretch for the old Trumpet to call up the four Horsemen and we start seeing people disappear. The man truly has no limits, IMO.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two of Trump’s three high court appointees, suggested that former presidents might have some immunity and that in this case, lower courts might have to sort out whether that applied to Trump. That could further delay a trial."

To me, this says they're scared of Trump's retaliation threats. Or either they're incompetent appointees to start with, which I thoroughly agree on for one of them.

We only need two honest conservatives. I know, that may be asking for a bit much.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two of Trump’s three high court appointees, suggested that former presidents might have some immunity and that in this case, lower courts might have to sort out whether that applied to Trump. That could further delay a trial."

To me, this says they're scared of Trump's retaliation threats. Or either they're incompetent appointees to start with, which I thoroughly agree on for one of them.

Or they've too much loyalty to Trump,
& too little to the Constitution.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Trump’s Lawyer Tries to Convince a Stunned Sotomayor: President Has Immunity to Order Assassinations of Rivals

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Trump lawyer John Sauer had a stunning exchange over presidential immunity when it comes to the assassination of political rivals.

www.mediaite.com

Excerpted....
SOTOMAYOR: Now I think. What? And then your, answer, below, I’m going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it, if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or order someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity?

Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical. What we can see that could well be an official act.

SOTOMAYOR: He could. And why? Because he’s doing it for personal reasons. He’s not doing it. Like President Obama is alleged to have done it to protect the country from a terrorist. He’s doing it for personal gain. And isn’t that the nature of the allegations here, that he’s not doing them, doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility? He’s doing it for personal gain.

Sauer: I agree with that characterization of the indictment. And that confirms immunity, because the characterization is that there’s a series of official acts that were done for an honorable.

The exchange continued and turned to a discussion over the distinction between absolute and qualified immunity as it applies to the Executive Branch, or in particular, the President of the United States.

One particular interesting point asked by the justices about was can Obama be tried for murder because of his drone strikes that went wrong and killed civilians or is he immune to charges.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Or they've too much loyalty to Trump,
& too little to the Constitution.

What part of the constitution supports your side of the argument?

 

[Revoltingest]

One particular interesting point asked by the justices about was can Obama be tried for murder because of his drone strikes that went wrong and killed civilians or is he immune to charges.

Obama's "crime" (if it was) was an official act.
This is unlike Trump's attempt to over-turn an
election, which even his own lawyer admitted
was a personal act.
Those are treated differently under the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

What part of the constitution supports your side of the argument?

Hypothesizing the argument that Trump could
murder a rival politician, I'd say we're looking
at SCOTUS creations, ie, absolute immunity, &
qualified immunity.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Hypothesizing the argument that Trump could
murder a rival politician, I'd say we're looking
at SCOTUS creations, ie, absolute immunity, &
qualified immunity.

You said the justices were not adhering to the constitution. What part are they not adhering to?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Hypothesizing the argument that Trump could
murder a rival politician, I'd say we're looking
at SCOTUS creations, ie, absolute immunity, &
qualified immunity.

If Trump did try to overthrow an election be illegal means then he should be prosecuted, but that is not what happened. But we have been through that before. Surely some acts should be immune, actual crimes should not.

 

[Spice]

If Trump did try to overthrow an election be illegal means then he should be prosecuted, but that is not what happened. But we have been through that before. Surely some acts should be immune, actual crimes should not.

Then he should be prosecuted, starting in AR where indictments were handed down on his team, but not him (yet), and most definitely in GA where it was recorded as he asked for "a favor" among other things.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Then he should be prosecuted, starting in AR where indictments were handed down on his team, but not him (yet), and most definitely in GA where it was recorded as he asked for "a favor" among other things.

Sigh, dual justice system at work. But this has been debated to death on this forum. I wonder when Biden will get around to debating Trump and actually having a real election?

 

[fantome profane]

If Trump did try to overthrow an election be illegal means then he should be prosecuted, but that is not what happened.

That should be a matter for a jury to decide.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What part of the constitution supports your side of the argument?

Impeachment and removal from office already establishes politicians do not have absolute immunity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Impeachment and removal from office already establishes politicians do not have absolute immunity.

Hah!! I have been listening to Trump's lawyers. Not if he nukes the Capitol as part of an 'official act' and according them it seems to be that whatever Trump claims to be official is official. Now if we can just get the USSC to swallow that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sigh, dual justice system at work. But this has been debated to death on this forum. I wonder when Biden will get around to debating Trump and actually having a real election?

Trump is likely the one that does not want a debate. But it is a bit early for debates. Historically they have always happened after the conventions.