Trump Again Claiming Right To Assassinate Rivals

[Copernicus]

Killing US citizens abroad serving as enemy combatants
strikes me as very different from Trump sending Seal
Team 6 to kill Nikki Haley in S Carolina.

Too true. Trump's lawyer assured the Supreme Court that the military is always free to refuse to obey an illegal order, although he was vague on whether such and order could be considered illegal, if the president ordered it. After all, he would have total immunity from prosecution under that guy's theory, unless he were impeached and convicted by the Senate first. Although some of the justices appeared quite skeptical of the theory, it was far from clear that the more conservative ones were ready to reject it. Speculation has it that they will confer some kind of limited immunity on their preferred presidential candidate and then send the matter back to lower courts, giving Trump time to make it into office and cancel all of the federal criminal prosecutions against himself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Too true. Trump's lawyer assured the Supreme Court that the military is always free to refuse to obey an illegal order, although he was vague on whether such and order could be considered illegal, if the president ordered it. After all, he would have total immunity from prosecution under that guy's theory, unless he were impeached and convicted by the Senate first. Although some of the justices appeared quite skeptical of the theory, it was far from clear that the more conservative ones were ready to reject it. Speculation has it that they will confer some kind of limited immunity on their preferred presidential candidate and then send the matter back to lower courts, giving Trump time to make it into office and cancel all of the federal criminal prosecutions against himself.

I dislike the legal concept that a President can
commit any crime with impunity so long as
they're not impeached & convicted.
Even then, punishment might be a maximum
of eviction from office. That's insufficient, not
just because it could be too light, but also
because impeachment in our time never sees
conviction.

 

[Nakosis]

Killing US citizens abroad serving as enemy combatants
strikes me as very different from Trump sending Seal
Team 6 to kill Nikki Haley in S Carolina.

The latter was a hypothetical. You always come up with a hypothetical which would be cause for concern.
IMO, it is necessary for the president to have some immunities in their capacity as president which be absolute in specific circumstances.

I think the important question is when is the president acting in the capacity as president and when they are not. Something the other branches of government would need to decide. It is good it is being brought up so a precedence can be set. Certainly Trump would argue for his benefit though clothed in an argument for the benefit of any future president.

We'll have to see what the SCOTUS rules. Not much to worry about until then.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Presidential debates traditionally occur in September and October.


This is the end of April.

So what, why do they need to be in september? We will see if Biden will actually debate Trump. I hope he does.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

How many Republican primary debates did Trump show up to?





Zero. The answer is zero.

So I have no idea why you think Trump wants to, or will debate Biden.

And he is the nominee. Yeah, he did not have to debate, there was no upside for Trump to do so. Both candidates say they will debate, we will see if it happens.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

How many presidents would fall under "strikes gone wrong and/or civilians killed"?

Should they all be charged with murder or is that covered under casualties of war.

That was the point of the question. What acts are immune to prosecution and what acts are not. Surely killing innocent civilians by drone attacks is more serious than anything Trump supposedly did.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So far, Donald Trump hasn't committed to one. Both candidates have now said that they would commit to one. However, talk is cheap, and there have been no presidential candidates in the past who are cheaper than Donald Trump when it comes to honoring a commitment. As fantome profane has pointed out, debates don't even take place until the fall. Both candidates are so old, that there is a small chance that one will expire or become otherwise incapacitated before the real campaign season starts.

Any debate with Donald Trump is going to become a chaotic media circus that will serve the needs of the news networks better than the public, which has been thoroughly exposed to their abilities to run the office of the presidency.

It does not matter when they occur. I want Biden to debate, it will be a bloodbath for the dems.

 

[We Never Know]

That was the point of the question. What acts are immune to prosecution and what acts are not. Surely killing innocent civilians by drone attacks is more serious than anything Trump supposedly did.

Do you realize that under Trump, his ordered airstrikes in Afghanistan killed many civilians?

"The United States military in 2017 chose to relax its rules of engagement for airstrikes in Afghanistan, which resulted in a massive increase in civilian casualties. From the last year of the Obama administration to the last full year of recorded data during the Trump administration, the number of civilians killed by U.S.-led airstrikes in Afghanistan increased by 330 percent

This report reveals the price that Afghan civilians have paid for all parties’ escalation of violence in their attempts to gain leverage in talks between the United States and the Taliban. The data demonstrates that, compared to the previous 10 years, there was a 95 percent increase in civilians killed by U.S. and allied forces’ airstrikes between 2017 and 2019. Further, during the period of intra-Afghan talks, the Afghan Air Force has killed more civilians than at any point in its history."

Papers - 2020 - Afghanistan's Rising Civilian Death Toll Due to Airstrikes, 2017-2020 | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Do you realize that under Trump, his ordered airstrikes in Afghanistan killed many civilians?

"The United States military in 2017 chose to relax its rules of engagement for airstrikes in Afghanistan, which resulted in a massive increase in civilian casualties. From the last year of the Obama administration to the last full year of recorded data during the Trump administration, the number of civilians killed by U.S.-led airstrikes in Afghanistan increased by 330 percent"

Papers - 2020 - Afghanistan's Rising Civilian Death Toll Due to Airstrikes, 2017-2020 | Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

I know. That is not the point of the question. Where is the line drawn on immunity? If Obama or Trump are immune from prosecution from drone strikes, which seems a more serious offences than anything Trump is accused of, why is he not immune from those as well?

 

[Revoltingest]

The latter was a hypothetical. You always come up with a hypothetical which would be cause for concern.

That particular hypothetical was exactly the
scenario that Trump claimed he could do.
Excerpted from the link in the OP....
Sauer had previously argued that under certain circumstances, a president could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival and not face prosecution, at an appeal hearing on former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

IMO, it is necessary for the president to have some immunities in their capacity as president which be absolute in specific circumstances.

I think the important question is when is the president acting in the capacity as president and when they are not. Something the other branches of government would need to decide. It is good it is being brought up so a precedence can be set. Certainly Trump would argue for his benefit though clothed in an argument for the benefit of any future president.

We'll have to see what the SCOTUS rules. Not much to worry about until then.

This thread isn't about worrying.
It's to discuss the issue in the OP.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I dislike the legal concept that a President can
commit any crime with impunity so long as
they're not impeached & convicted.
Even then, punishment might be a maximum
of eviction from office. That's insufficient, not
just because it could be too light, but also
because impeachment in our time never sees
conviction.

And you should dislike it -- the fact that it does not exist within the Constitution rather strongly suggests that the Framers didn't think much of the idea, either.

Article II, Section 2 lays out the powers vested in the President, and nowhere does it say that the President is above the laws applicable to every American.

 

[Nakosis]

That particular hypothetical was exactly the
scenario that Trump claimed he could do.
Excerpted from the link in the OP....
Sauer had previously argued that under certain circumstances, a president could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival and not face prosecution, at an appeal hearing on former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

The exchange came during questioning from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sought to know whether immunity for an "official act" would extend to a politically motivated killing.

"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?" Sotomayor asked.

"It would depend on the hypothetical," Sauer responded. "From what we can see, that could well be an official act."

What if the president's political rival turned out to be a terrorist who threatened to detonate a nuclear bomb in a highly populated city unless unless they resigned the office?

 

[Pogo]

The exchange came during questioning from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sought to know whether immunity for an "official act" would extend to a politically motivated killing.

"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?" Sotomayor asked.

"It would depend on the hypothetical," Sauer responded. "From what we can see, that could well be an official act."

What if the president's political rival turned out to be a terrorist who threatened to detonate a nuclear bomb in a highly populated city unless unless they resigned the office?

Donald doesn't have a bomb and until there is evidence he does we will leave this one in the fantasy fiction area.

 

[Revoltingest]

The exchange came during questioning from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sought to know whether immunity for an "official act" would extend to a politically motivated killing.

"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?" Sotomayor asked.

"It would depend on the hypothetical," Sauer responded. "From what we can see, that could well be an official act."

What if the president's political rival turned out to be a terrorist who threatened to detonate a nuclear bomb in a highly populated city unless unless they resigned the office?

That would be adding a significant difference....an add-on
to what Trump claims via his lawyers. Why not claim that
the political rival broke into Trump's home, & came at him
with a knife? Trump could legally shoot the perp.
Let's limit discussion to what Trump claims, ie, that he can
have a political rival assassinated...for that reason.

 

[Pogo]

The exchange came during questioning from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sought to know whether immunity for an "official act" would extend to a politically motivated killing.

"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?" Sotomayor asked.

"It would depend on the hypothetical," Sauer responded. "From what we can see, that could well be an official act."

What if the president's political rival turned out to be a terrorist who threatened to detonate a nuclear bomb in a highly populated city unless unless they resigned the office?

Interestingly this came up in another thread just now.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact​

(also known as: counterfactual fallacy, speculative fallacy, "what if" fallacy, wouldchuck)
Description: Offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future, if (the hypothetical part) circumstances or conditions were different. The fallacy also entails treating future hypothetical situations as if they are fact.
Logical Form:
If event X did happen, then event Y would have happened (based only on speculation).
Example #1:
If you took that course on CD player repair right out of high school, you would be doing well and gainfully employed right now.
Explanation: This is speculation at best, not founded on evidence, and is unfalsifiable. There are many people with far more useful talents who are unemployed, and many who are “gainfully” employed who are not doing well at all. Besides, perhaps those with certificates in compact disc repair are gainfully employed... at McDonald’s.
Example #2:
John, if you would have taken a shower more often, you would still be dating Tina.
Explanation: Past hypotheticals that are stated as fact are most often nothing more than one possible outcome of many. One cannot ignore probabilities when making these kinds of statements. Perhaps Tina likes the smell of man sweat. Perhaps Tina would have still preferred Renaldo over John despite John's personal hygiene because of Renaldo's enormous intellect.

 

[Nakosis]

Interestingly this came up in another thread just now.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact​

(also known as: counterfactual fallacy, speculative fallacy, "what if" fallacy, wouldchuck)
Description: Offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future, if (the hypothetical part) circumstances or conditions were different. The fallacy also entails treating future hypothetical situations as if they are fact.
Logical Form:
If event X did happen, then event Y would have happened (based only on speculation).
Example #1:
If you took that course on CD player repair right out of high school, you would be doing well and gainfully employed right now.
Explanation: This is speculation at best, not founded on evidence, and is unfalsifiable. There are many people with far more useful talents who are unemployed, and many who are “gainfully” employed who are not doing well at all. Besides, perhaps those with certificates in compact disc repair are gainfully employed... at McDonald’s.
Example #2:
John, if you would have taken a shower more often, you would still be dating Tina.
Explanation: Past hypotheticals that are stated as fact are most often nothing more than one possible outcome of many. One cannot ignore probabilities when making these kinds of statements. Perhaps Tina likes the smell of man sweat. Perhaps Tina would have still preferred Renaldo over John despite John's personal hygiene because of Renaldo's enormous intellect.

Unfortunately, the article in the OP uses a soundbite that seems to cutoff the response of the lawyer. Actually Justice Jackson cuts off Justice Sotomayor. Although Justice Sotomayor try to specify the act done for personal gain we don't get to hear a final response to this.

What is being presented to the court is that some act, private acts done by the president they all agree would not get immunity. The point from what I understand and the reason that it is before the SCOTUS is the lower court argued that it didn't matter whether the acts where private or done in the capacity of the president. That is what Trump's lawyer is arguing. That act done in the officially capacity as the president should be exempt from prosecution. However some acts done privately for personal gain would not receive such immunity. This is what Justice Sotomayor was trying to specifically ask, got around to asking after the lawyer started talking about hypotheticals but never directly got answered.

 

[Nakosis]

That would be adding a significant difference....an add-on
to what Trump claims via his lawyers. Why not claim that
the political rival broke into Trump's home, & came at him
with a knife? Trump could legally shoot the perp.
Let's limit discussion to what Trump claims, ie, that he can
have a political rival assassinated...for that reason.

Yes, that is the point. Unfortunately when Justice Sotomayor clarified further, to as you say limit the discussion, the lawyer was unfortunately cut off before responding. So if you what to limit the discussion to that specifically no answer was given when it was specified to exactly that question.

The response the lawyer was about to give was cut-off by justice Jackson which nobody hears because they cut that part out.

 

[F1fan]

So what, why do they need to be in september? We will see if Biden will actually debate Trump. I hope he does.

Yes, Trump lost last time they debated. Now Trump is even less stable and less coherent. We need the voters to see him for themselves.

 

[Spice]

I wish someone could get through to old Trumpet in understanding the significance of the following quote:
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

Trumpet is just blowing his horn to be President again the same way as last time -- for what he can get out of it.

 

[F1fan]

That was the point of the question. What acts are immune to prosecution and what acts are not. Surely killing innocent civilians by drone attacks is more serious than anything Trump supposedly did.

Innocent citizens weren't being targetted. There happened to be others at an event where a wanted criminal and terrorist was known to be. This is vastly more acceptable than dropping bombs on cities where civilians live as was common in WW2. And have I seen you post any condemnation on Netanyahu for ordering attacks on civilians in Gaza?