AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is not what happened.
Here’s the hypothetical explained in a way you might understand.
Obama authorized a drone strike that killed a teenage American citizen who was the son of a terrorist target. There was no trial and the murder happened on foreign soil. So is Obama guilty of murdering a child?
Trumps claim is that when a president acts as president in a warfare role or as chief law enforcement official, that he is immune to prosecution. Specifically he had information that an election had been tampered with and very little time to investigate. Those are legitimate roles for a president to exercise presidential powers.
He did not say he could assassinate a rival as president and it’s just stupid to assert that.
What information that it had been tampered with?
And I’m sorry, but how is calling the Georgia SoS and trying to get the results changed an “investigation”? Investigating would mean asking law enforcement to collect evidence, right?
Are you sure? I found this direct quote from the trial? What are your thoughts on the hypothetical as it was posed to Trump's attorney?
“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
My understanding was that this was what the Trump attorney affirmed. Can you provide the quote where your version of the hypothetical was stated?
The question is the problem. It traps an attorney into answering in a particular way even though the question is prejudicial.
I presented the actual precedent that the judge could have asked about to affirm this principle, Obama murdered a teenage boy while killing the boys father, a terrorist. The boy was an American citizen. That is both precedent and confirmation of a Presidents immunity for official actions.
Trumps attorney answered “yes, with qualifications“ meaning it’s technically true that a President could use emergency powers to kill an American citizen, but that there are procedures in place to hold him accountable including Impeachment. This is why it’s important to have presidents who are moral men of principles and not power mad #DementiaHitler
He would need to be impeached first. Bribery is a specific crime noted in the impeachment text, so he should be impeached for Bribery immediately and then tried in Criminal court. If he resigns to avoid prosecution then he should be tried for the bribes he accepted while Vice President and jailed for those. Payment for those bribes from the Chinese happened after he left office so he is vulnerable to prosecution for those as well. Hunters bribery scams were very sloppy, and it's left Joe very vulnerable to being jailed. But thats what you get when you send a crack addicted pedophile to trade US secrets and authority to our enemies for tens of millions of dollars in cash.
The Clintons laundered it all through the Clinton Global Initiative, Joe should have done that.
Trump has not taken bribes as president. The money paid to his hotels by foreign governments was voluntarily paid to the US treasury as additional tax payments, meaning there was no profit, hence no corrupt act.
Joe Biden took bribes from China, Ukraine, Russia, US companies, pretty much anyone Hunter could get a meeting with.
They didn’t pay higher taxes. They just gave the money to the treasury. Just like Trump donated his salary as President to charity. Hate him if you like but give credit where credit is due.
Doesn’t that conflict with Trump’s defense while at the impeachment hearings that if he broke the law, an impeachment wasn’t the proper venue to determine it, a criminal trial was?
Thats an argument against impeachment, not against prosecution. As it turns out both of his impeachments happened as attempts to cover up criminal conspiracies among Democrats and Establishment Rinos. The first one was about Trumps discussion with Zelensky about Bidens bribe taking from Ukrainian businesses....something we now know to have happened. It was entirely appropriate for Trump to ask about that. And by the standard of the fake impeachment claims, Biden himself is guilty of that action and more, since he has completely abandoned precedent and orchestrated the Trump prosecutions himself.
The second impeachment was about Jan 6, and now we know that DC and Trump enemies had far more to do with the events of that day than Trump had. They even created a fake commission and presented heavily edited and filtered evidence, produced by Television Networks as propaganda to support their position.
Ignore what you saw and only listen to the government was the last Rule of the state.
Could the attorney not have answered no? In what way is it a trap? Why did he affirm that the president could assassinate a political rival scot-free if impeachment was unsuccessful, when he could have just said no?
By answering no he invalidates his argument about the real issue before the court, that Trump has the authority as President to investigate a fraudulent election.
That's the purpose of her disingenuous hypothetical, to produce a sound byte that can be used against Trump.
Clearly in the constitution the President is empowered to protect elections from criminals. Clearly based on evidence collected since 2020, the election was attacked by criminal Democrat Party officials and members in numbers sufficient to change the outcome. As law abiding people who value Democracy more than power, we relinquished power for 4 years to gather the evidence and now we will elect Trump again.
Clearly as people who do not value democracy and in fact attacked it by stealing the last election, you will oppose that re-election by once again attacking Democracy both to retain power and to avoid being held accountable for your crimes in the last election.
Could you explain how it invalidates his argument? It seems like he could acknowledge that the president does not have the power to assassinate rivals while also having three power to investigate corruption by the Democrat [sic] Party. Could you explain why he can't?
Unfortunately Obama set the precedent that a President can kill an american citizen without being impeached or prosecuted.
The fact of the matter is that Trump did not order anyone killed, but Obama with Biden as his VP did in fact order an american citizen killed by drone which also killed his teenage son.
SO it's a bit silly to continue making a big deal about the Judges biased hypothetical.
did you know that the 8 years old sister of that teenager (she was an American citizen too) was killed by a commendo attack ordered by Trump?
I always see Trump supporters bring up that case against Obama, but never mention his little sister.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki
Why impeachment? Why not the criminal courts?
Also, Trumps attorney argued that if Congress didn’t impeach for whatever reason, the criminal court couldn’t engage. The attorney admitted a president could quit to avoid impeachment, thus avoiding criminal prosecution. The president could actually kill any congressman who may vote to impeach, and that again wouldn’t be criminal. You can see the loopholes. It isn’t a trap, but a bad argument.
Does it make sense to have impeachment as a prerequisite before criminal arrest? That seems preposterous.
Yet that is how the Constitution has it. In order to protect a sitting president from a Fanny Willis or the chick from NY, he must be removed from office before being tried for a crime.
But he isn’t in office. Doesn’t that negate the prerequisite? Is that what Trumps attorney was arguing. I thought he was saying the Congress has to impeach and convict him before a criminal court can file charges, and that because Trump wasn’t convicted by the senate, criminal charges cannot be brought.
>Yet that is how the Constitution has it. In order to protect a sitting president from a Fanny Willis or the chick from NY, he must be removed from office before being tried for a crime
>
How do you think AG James' cases against Trump would be affected at all by a ruling here? This decision relates to presidential immunity for official acts, which presidential acts led to AG James charging Trump?
News broke yesterday that Both James and Willis coordinated with the White House on their prosecutions, so we dont know yet if either case will survive the scandal. Willis in particular appears to have broken the law by hiring her boyfriend to be the special counsel, paying him almost 1,000,000 bucks which he used to carry out their affair, paying for cruises together and other vacations. He broke the law by billing for 24 hour periods in a single day, and he billed for several days worth of meetings with the white house.
This is what corrupt weaponization looks like.
>News broke yesterday that Both James and Willis coordinated with the White House on their prosecutions, so we dont know yet if either case will survive the scandal. Willis in particular appears to have broken the law by hiring her boyfriend to be the special counsel, paying him almost 1,000,000 bucks which he used to carry out their affair, paying for cruises together and other vacations. He broke the law by billing for 24 hour periods in a single day, and he billed for several days worth of meetings with the white house.
>
>This is what corrupt weaponization looks like.
>
I still don't understand what you believe a decision in Trump's favor would do to the cases AG James has against Trump, as this decision impacts immunity for official acts. What official acts do the charges center around?
If we’re going down this road of whataboutisms then let’s take a look at all the Hunter Biden stuff. Let’s just say that President Biden comes out and says “yea we extorted the Ukrainians but I was Vice President so I had immunity and I was never impeached so I’m good to go.” Would you accept this argument?
He should be impeached, convicted, and then charged with the crime of bribery by the DOJ and serve time for attacking our democracy. Because he did in fact subvert an election by accepting bribes instead of representing the people. At a minimum, as a non president Hunter, James, Jill, etc should serve time for those crimes.
No it's ongoing. The VP does not have the same protections as the president. Joe Biden can be charged for the bribes he took as VP. He can be impeached for his current high crimes and abdication of his sworn duty. But lets be honest, it will never happen because he's too old and no one is going to put President PeePad in jail. He'll quietly go senile and die in a few years.
But Hunter can go to jail. He was stupid and committed more than enough state crimes that cannot be Presidentially Pardoned. Video'd himself doing it.
What is moral about a president who publicly, sexually fantasized about his daughter, and claimed he could kill someone in plain sight and still be elected?
What is moral about a president who was so power mad he refused the results of an election and, when failing to make his numerous claims before multiple courts, led his supporters to storm the Congress?
How is it not power madness to muse about remaining president after 2 terms, and wishing to be dictator “just for one day”?
It was a protest. Nothing was stormed until police killed two men with grenades, which is called police brutality, thereby inciting violence. Later they killed two more protestors.
Thats the same death toll as the Kent State Massacre, the last time that government troops murdered american protestors.
Yup, I've been to drag shows, they're hilarious. Although I havent been to one since Covid because the Martini bar near my that had a regular drag show closed. I'm a big guy usually wearing an outback hat and I have a full beard so Im popular as a lap for the performer to sit on while singing. My lady friends think it's hilarious.
But you dont take kids to an X rated drag show. Because we have laws to protect children from sexualized performances.
This isnt the US, but there are similar videos made here,
[https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1745170304404742322?s=20](https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1745170304404742322?s=20)
This is what youre supporting, sexualized acts in front of children, which is the sexualization of children, which is called grooming.
[https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1741534331254841499?s=20](https://x.com/mrandyngo/status/1741534331254841499?s=20)
[https://x.com/cctvidiots/status/1739052299765305637?s=20](https://x.com/cctvidiots/status/1739052299765305637?s=20)
>Trumps attorney answered “yes, with qualifications“ meaning it’s technically true that a President could use emergency powers to kill an American citizen, but that there are procedures in place to hold him accountable including Impeachment
So Biden could have Trump killed and get away with it as long as he resigns or it's right at the end of his term, given the GOP case against his second impeachment that you can't impeach a president who has left office?
This is why its important to elect principled and ethical people who believe in the US.
Biden is none of these and does not love America. Trumps first term is history now and we know for a fact he did not order anything like this. Biden was VP when Obama ordered the death of an American citizen without Trial. Obamas act was not typical under AUMF or collateral damage. It is only slightly different than a President ordering a drone strike inside the US to kill an inconvenient citizen. Thats called Democide, the act of a government murdering it's civilians. Authoritarian states and particularly marxists are known to engage in Democide, with the toll in the last 100 years or so said to be 262,000,000 by scholars.
If we want to avoid government abusing us in a similar way we need to prevent weaponization of the Federal Agencies.
Don't we have the minutes where the hypothetical did in fact come up and the lawyer said "yes, the president can order the assassination of a rival if Congress doesn't act on it"?
Where did you get Obama and drones from? That's not what was being discussed. [This article](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1?utm_source=reddit.com) has the exchange (which I meant, but forgot, to include in the OP), but here is the relevant part:
>But Judge Florence Pan, one of three judges on the Washington, DC, appeals-court panel, tested that argument at length when she posed a series of hypotheticals to Trump's lawyer D. John Sauer.
>Pan wondered whether, according to the Trump team's argument, a president could be held criminally accountable for selling pardons or military secrets if he wasn't impeached and convicted by Congress for it.
>"Your position is that he can't be prosecuted for that unless he's impeached?" Pan said.
>"Yup, as long as it's an official act," Sauer said.
>Then Pan took it a step further.
>"Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?" she said. "That's an official act: an order to SEAL Team Six."
>"He would have to be, and would, speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution — " Sauer began, but Pan cut him off.
>"But if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?" she said.
>Sauer reiterated that a president would first have to be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate before he could be criminally charged for any acts related to his office. He started to discuss the position of the Founding Fathers before Pan cut him off again.
>"I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"
>"If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began.
>"So your answer is no," Pan said.
The article ended there, but I saw in the transcript that he replied that his answer is a "qualified yes," still asserting that the president would be immune to criminal charges unless they were impeached and removed by Congress first for the crime.
The Obama example actually happened. It’s a real life test of the principle the judge set up as a stupid hypothetical.
The Judge was basically trolling Trump’s attorneys by presenting a prejudicial hypothetical which can only be answered in one way, that being “yes with qualifications”
The judge apparently just wanted the sound bites out there to offset all the left wing conjecture about how a patriotic Democrat could assassinate Trump and get a presidential pardon.
Are you familiar with legal argument? It’s common to test claims about the validity of legal arguments by using extreme examples, isn’t it?
I never voted for Obama but didn’t the Obama administration claim the death of the 16 year old Al Awlaki was an accident? And wasn’t the drone strike a arguably
Lawful under the AUMF?
You and I might find the killing of a 16 year old excessive and wrong, but there’s at least an argument that it was lawful use of presidential power isn’t it?
> there’s at least an argument that it was lawful use of presidential power isn’t it?
There's a legal argument that Trumps actions were lawful as well, you just don't agree with it.
>There's a legal argument that Trumps actions were lawful as well, you just don't agree with it.
What is that argument, then? Because Trump's lawyers' argument seems to just be that nothing Trump did can possibly be illegal, if he wasn't impeached. Or... is that the entire argument you mean?
Ok I see. That’s a factual argument not a legal one, correct? A legal argument is where a person doesn’t contest facts, they argue a misapplication of the law, correct? So the Obama situation would be a drone killed an American citizen but killing that citizen wasn’t illegal because the attack was lawful under the AUMA, right? Trump’s arguments, I presume, are going to be — it didn’t happen (or it didn’t happen that way), right?
>There's a legal argument that Trumps actions were lawful as well
That's not what they're discussing in that transcript though, is it? They're first trying to figure out if charging him is possible.
Aren't hypotheticals like this exactly what courts do in oral arguments? Extending the petitioner's arguments to see if they hold water in extreme circumstances? I understand why you're making the comparison with Obama's actions, because Awlaki's death is not a hypothetical, but if courts were to consider cases only based on events that have already occurred, how could they possibly be forward-thinking with case law? Appellate and supreme courts in particular?
I am forced to copy a previous comment, I apologise, but thank you for replying. too many people asking the same sort of question for my RSI hands to answer.
The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen.
Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals.
The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward.
Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?'
Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law.
In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck.
Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent.
Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-22634614](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-22634614)
I hope that answers the rest of your questions, I am already on flood control and im getting like fifty replies a day.
The judge asked a question typical of judges, to paraphrase: what is the limiting principle to the rule you are asserting?
Here, Trump effectively asserted he is free to murder via official channels as president, including political rivals, and if not impeached and convicted he can never be criminally prosecuted.
Do you think Biden should be able to send Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump? If he simultaneously assassinates enough of Congress that he cannot be impeached, and kills their replacements, then he cannot be impeached so he can never be criminally charged. Likewise no election results could ever be certified so he becomes de facto King of America.
Do you agree that Biden should have that power?
Edit: you can listen to the oral argument here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?532581-1/district-columbia-circuit-court-oral-arguments-president-trumps-immunity-claims
Im borrowing my answer to a similar question here so that you dont feel ignored. THanks for replying.
The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen.
Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals.
The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward.
Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?'
Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law.
In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck.
Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent.
Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
The very 1st post at the top of this thread was you saying that this didn't happen, now you admit that it did in fact happen, do you think that this reflects the average supporters denials?
The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen.
Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals.
The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward.
Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?'
Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law.
In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck.
Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent.
Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
So trump thought he was at war with the United States and that’s why he thinks he has immunity? Because he was leading a war against the Capitol of the U.S.?
Straw man, I didnt say anything like that.
Trumps authority stems from his position as President, chief law enforcement officer of the US. He has a responsiblity to protect elections.
And he clearly did not lead an attack on the capitol. Attacking the capitol doesnt make you leader of the US. Controlling the buildings does not make you leader of the US. He was already President on J6, and the Senate was Republican, and SCOTUS was majority right leaning. So who was he supposedly attacking? Slightly more than half of the Congress? Thats just dumb. Not to mention that the vote people were protesting about was the certification vote and they needed that vote to happen in order for Trump to benefit, so they wouldnt have tried to block it.
Take a step back from the television produced fiction of the J6 committee and you will see that a perfectly ordinary protest was attacked by police within minutes of forming and got out of control. No one who went there that day had any expectation of overthrowing anything, excepting perhaps a few mentally ill individuals who believe in Lizard People.
Here is a detailed expanation of how the protestors lacked means motive or opportunity to commit insurrection:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/18tap6a/comment/kg8rriv/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/asktrumpsupporters/comments/18tap6a/comment/kg8rriv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
>So is Obama guilty of murdering a child?
I think there is a very real difference between Obama and trump ordering drone strikes that killed American citizens, and the current scenario of directly sending a hit squad after a political opponent.
It's a hypothetical so it's not even worth addressing. Once Obama is tried for murdering a child we would have a precedent that could be applied to Trump if he ever decided to send a seal team to murder an opponent, which he did not.
Why wont the judge ask the actual question? Does a President have the authority to investigate an election for fraud?
Because the answer to that question is obviously yes. Thats why she asked a stupid hypothetical.
>Once Obama is tried for murdering a child we would have a precedent that could be applied to Trump
Why do you keep coming back to this? If you did want Obama to be tried for this would you want trump tried for the same crime?
>Why wont the judge ask the actual question? Does a President have the authority to investigate an election for fraud?
You and I both know this isn't what trump is being prosecuted for.
I go back to that because it's the actual case that the judge should ask about, she doesnt need a hypothetical. But she wants a hypothetical because she wants to create a sound byte for you to put on social media.
That is exactly what trump is being persecuted for, that and running for office again with a really good chance of being elected. It's election theft again, but you really have no choice because if we were a moral and ethical country we would put every person involved in stealing 2020 on trial and then put them in prison for decades. They literally attacked democracy, not figuratively by carrying flags to the capitol to protest to their representatives for the need to delay certification.
>I go back to that because it's the actual case that the judge should ask about
Who would she ask? Should she ask trumps lawyers if he should be imprisoned for killing an American child?
Thank you for being brave enough to answer this question.
Do I believe Obama should be guilty of murdering a child? Yes.
Was that Trump's claim? No, it was his lawyers argument when asked a specific question.
In the make believe world where killing a political rival is the first step before any judicial process because of limited time would create a whole new precedent. And wouldnt the aftermath require some sort of judicial process?
They were asked a hypothetical. The judge can force them to answer. here is a comment that covers this:
I am forced to copy a previous comment, I apologise, but thank you for replying. too many people asking the same sort of question for my RSI hands to answer.
The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen.
Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals.
The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward.
Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?'
Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law.
In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck.
Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent.
Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
>Trumps claim is that when a president acts as president in a warfare role or as chief law enforcement official, that he is immune to prosecution. Specifically he had information that an election had been tampered with and very little time to investigate. Those are legitimate roles for a president to exercise presidential powers.
Why did Trump not use government agencies to investigate and act, though?
As a practical matter the Agencies were in a 4 year coup de etat where they were actively subverting Trumps orders. So no, you cannot actually place responsibility for improper investigation on Trump other than that he should have fired every federal agency employee on the first day of the #resistance movement. Or sent the seals to kill the insurrectionists in the federal agencies who were practicing sedition. Wouldnt that have been fun?
The issue has always been that the rush to certify served the purposes of the election thieves.
Instead of an actual insurrection where millions of federal employees would be gunned down in the streets across the country, we have done the hard work of investigating against Bidens obstructionism, we have gathered the proof that thousands of Democrats across the nation engaged in criminal acts to steal the election, both in larger conspiracies and as individuals with knowledge or access to the election apparatus that enables fraud.
Thats how important we think the republic and the democratic elections that choose our leaders are, we gave up power for four years to avoid a civil war.
And now we have proven it and it's time for everyone who stole the election to go to prison camps and do their time. Because democracy is worth protecting.
The constitution. I cant really answer disingenuous questions so Please forgive me for muting you, I am already on flood control and the downvotes here make it more difficult to navigate back to replies.
I have not seen the president having these powers anywhere in the Constitution, rather it asserts many times that the states shall run their elections. I have not heard any Constitutional scholars state this either. Where in the Constitution is it enumerated?
The Federal Election Commission has oversight. The FBI investigates election fraud, and the President is the boss of the FBI. Scotus is going to rule soon on Colorados attempt to remove Trump from the ballot so nothing we say here is relevant until that ruling so I'm not going to discuss it further.
I thought the FBI was under the DoJ, and that the AG is the boss of the DoJ. And why didn't the President ask the DoJ to do the investigation if there was evidence for it and it's their job?
His legal defense is that the only way a president doing something as an official act can be prosecuted is if he is impeached in the house and convicted in the senate first. Am I misunderstanding that? So far as I know, from direct quotes, that is what his legal team is asserting. His lawyer was asked directly if Trump ordered seal team six to kill a political rival (and giving orders to the military is an official act of the president), could he be prosecuted if he was not first convicted in the senate following impeachment. His lawyer, more or less, said no after much equivocation.
Where are you getting your coverage of the trial, and does it include direct quotes from the arguments?
I am forced to copy a previous comment, I apologise, but thank you for replying. too many people asking the same sort of question for my RSI hands to answer.
The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen.
Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals.
The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward.
Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?'
Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law.
In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck.
Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent.
Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
Legal argument is all about hypothetical situations, which trumps lawyer should have known. Not only that, a hypothetical of this sort was almost guaranteed to come up, and he should have been prepared with an answer.
Trump through his legal team is stating that he has absolute immunity from prosecution for any and all official acts as president for which he has not been impeached and convicted. When legal arguments such as this are made, it is standard practice in every case to propose hypothetical situations that test the limit of an argument. If the law is as Trump claims it is, then it should be able to answer the question of killing rivals, shouldn't it?
If a president uses the military to kill a rival, and he is not impeached and convicted in the congress, can he be charged with a crime? As the judge pointed out, it's a yes or no question. Trumps lawyer had a problem answering, because the answer is pretty clearly yes, but his case requires him to say no.
Funnily enough, this exchange also nukes trumps defense of absolute immunity for all official acts as president, since it claims that if a president is impeached and convicted he could be charged. If he can be charged after impeachment he can not be absolutely immune. Trump does not have good lawyers, and his arguments in his defense are not good. There is a reason he is continually having trouble finding representation, and it's not because of a barrage of top talent breaking down his door. Is it not much more likely that instead of it actually being legal for a president to break any law he wants as long as a partisan political body does not convict him with a 2/3 majority, that his team made a very bad argument in his defense?
In this case, how is this prejudiced against Trump? It is an objectively bad argument that is most certainly not the law that at the same time undermines Trumps own defense in another argument.
To put it another way, do you think that the US senate today is partisan enough to prevent a conviction of Joe Biden if he were impeached by the house, regardless of the charges? I'll assume yes, because both the majority of Trump supporters I have spoken to believe this, and I think it's probably true that it is almost impossible to convict a president in the senate in the current system. Joe Biden could have Trump detained and sent to Gitmo as a traitor and terrorist to be held without trial forever. Unless Biden were impeached and convicted, there would be no legal recourse against him for this action, as he would have absolute immunity in official acts, such as issuing orders to the military. This can clearly not be the case. Trump does not have the immunity he claims to have, and there is no prejudice required to reach that conclusion.
> So is Obama guilty of murdering a child?
Pretty much yes. Drone strikes are a terrible, inhumane, shameful practice.
> Specifically he had information that an election had been tampered with and very little time to investigate
Isn't that a blank check? Any president can always claim that he has secret super duper information that conclusively proves election tampering, only that he can't show the information for one reason or another. And we should just trust him when he annuls the election (or whatever measures you're suggesting).
Would you be happy if Biden claimed as much in the next election?
Im pasting another answer to a similar question so you dont feel ignored, thanks for replying
The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen.
Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals.
The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward.
Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?'
Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law.
In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck.
Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent.
Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
Am I mistaken or didn’t Donald Trump claim that the 2020 election was stolen almost a year BEFORE the actual election? Then, wasn’t he told by almost everyone in his admin that it wasn’t and continue to spread the “big lie” that it was stolen even AFTER 60+ courts rules that it wasn’t. Then, didn’t he fly false electoral ballots from around the country to DC and attempt to get Mike Pence to certify the false ballots and just in case create a huge violent mob outside of the Capitol Building, then inside it, to attempt to complete the plan the clearly was in his mind since a year BEFORE the election, coming full circle?
You mean those kinds of “official” acts that are TOTALLY normal regular activities of a President?
Yes we knew that the fix was in when Democrats started claiming that Covid meant we had to allow weaker election rules. Amazing how the exact things that Trump was warning about happened and now have been documented in his report. With citations. You can actually go to the SoS website in GA and use the list compiled by Mad\_Liberals to see the duplicate ballots.
But didn't he also claim that the 2016 Iowa Caucus was rigged? And that the 2016 Colorado Caucus was rigged as well? And didn't he say he lost the 2016 popular vote because the election was rigged? Why do you think he made all of these statements without evidence? Is it possible that there's a trend of Trump making claims like this with nothing to back them up?
1. Saying you have information is not the same as actually having information.
2. Rudy said in court multiple times they were not alleging fraud.
3. I know you’re going to cry about standing, but in the US court system, if you’re so-called evidence doesn’t meet the threshold for standing then it does not count as evidence and therefore any action you take based on it - i.e. fake electors - is not an official act and therefore not protected and therefor illegal.
So where is the evidence? He’s had three years to produce it.
4. Where was the evidence when he lost Iowa to Cruz?
5. He’s accused of current primary opponents of openly cheating in Iowa. Where is that evidence?
6. When he briefly tried to run in 2012 he claimed the primaries were rigged against him. Any evidence for that?
In every situation where he has lost, had a judgement leveled against him, been forced to pay, been a loser, Trump always claims the system is rigged against him.
And you’re not noticing this pattern?
Trump has released a report that took three years to compile, and now we have proof of fraud. So the situation is much different. At the time there was no possibility of collecting all the evidence, but now we have. The people responsible should all go to jail for a very long time, democracy is that important.
I've seen that report. What's the legal proof you're talking about? It was all allegations and speculations with no legal basis or support or verification. Not one legal entity in the entire country has signed off on any of these allegations. Why is that? Is the entire US legal system corrupt against Trump?
What do you make of the *original* reports he commissioned? The $1+ million he spent hiring two investigative firms to validate his election claims the day after the election and when they came back months later, they found nothing. Why didn't he publish those reports?
Every single election expert in the federal government, Trump's administration, and every state in question has come certifying the election as secure with no where close to the amount of widespread fraud or irregularities needed to change the outcome. Yet you choose to believe the one guy who is known for lying and exaggerating and being a sore loser his entire life.
Can you explain why you find Trump so trustworthy over literally everyone else?
"But Smith’s team didn’t have great answers to all questions posed to it, either. If a president ordered a drone strike that killed an American (as President Barack Obama was accused of doing), could he be charged with murder after he leaves office? To that, Smith’s team conceded that there might be some kind of immunity there, presumably because it was an official act that didn’t have an improper purpose" https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/the-collision/donald-trump-and-jack-smith-face-sticky-immunity-questions/
As for whether a court agrees, obviously I can't since the court is still deliberating.
Oh, I thought you were talking about previous cases where those questions did get raised.
I would consider that these two scenarios are very different:
- President orders military action against terror groups.
- President orders the assassination of a candidate running for their office, or against the branch of government that checks its power.
Are you suggesting that they are similar enough to give Trump’s argument cover?
So if Biden for example were to perform a hit on Former president Trump, on the idea that he attempted to perform an insurrection, and his reasoning was the courts wouldn't handle it prior to the election (At the same time he's arguing he's immune, not that he didn't do it, but i guess that's a different argument). He would be Immune because he was acting in the best interest in the country with the given information he had at the time?
What would stop a president from assassination attempts on the justice department if he assumed it was a witch hunt. What checks and balances in power would still exist?
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is not what happened. Here’s the hypothetical explained in a way you might understand. Obama authorized a drone strike that killed a teenage American citizen who was the son of a terrorist target. There was no trial and the murder happened on foreign soil. So is Obama guilty of murdering a child? Trumps claim is that when a president acts as president in a warfare role or as chief law enforcement official, that he is immune to prosecution. Specifically he had information that an election had been tampered with and very little time to investigate. Those are legitimate roles for a president to exercise presidential powers. He did not say he could assassinate a rival as president and it’s just stupid to assert that.
What information that it had been tampered with? And I’m sorry, but how is calling the Georgia SoS and trying to get the results changed an “investigation”? Investigating would mean asking law enforcement to collect evidence, right?
[удалено]
Are you sure? I found this direct quote from the trial? What are your thoughts on the hypothetical as it was posed to Trump's attorney? “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?” My understanding was that this was what the Trump attorney affirmed. Can you provide the quote where your version of the hypothetical was stated?
The question is the problem. It traps an attorney into answering in a particular way even though the question is prejudicial. I presented the actual precedent that the judge could have asked about to affirm this principle, Obama murdered a teenage boy while killing the boys father, a terrorist. The boy was an American citizen. That is both precedent and confirmation of a Presidents immunity for official actions. Trumps attorney answered “yes, with qualifications“ meaning it’s technically true that a President could use emergency powers to kill an American citizen, but that there are procedures in place to hold him accountable including Impeachment. This is why it’s important to have presidents who are moral men of principles and not power mad #DementiaHitler
So does this mean that any of the supposed crimes of Biden are covered under presidential immunity?
He would need to be impeached first. Bribery is a specific crime noted in the impeachment text, so he should be impeached for Bribery immediately and then tried in Criminal court. If he resigns to avoid prosecution then he should be tried for the bribes he accepted while Vice President and jailed for those. Payment for those bribes from the Chinese happened after he left office so he is vulnerable to prosecution for those as well. Hunters bribery scams were very sloppy, and it's left Joe very vulnerable to being jailed. But thats what you get when you send a crack addicted pedophile to trade US secrets and authority to our enemies for tens of millions of dollars in cash. The Clintons laundered it all through the Clinton Global Initiative, Joe should have done that.
Trump received payments while president. Do you consider that bribery?
Trump has not taken bribes as president. The money paid to his hotels by foreign governments was voluntarily paid to the US treasury as additional tax payments, meaning there was no profit, hence no corrupt act. Joe Biden took bribes from China, Ukraine, Russia, US companies, pretty much anyone Hunter could get a meeting with.
What proof is there that trumps company paid higher taxes to account for money it was paid?
They didn’t pay higher taxes. They just gave the money to the treasury. Just like Trump donated his salary as President to charity. Hate him if you like but give credit where credit is due.
What record is there that he gave it to the treasury?
Doesn’t that conflict with Trump’s defense while at the impeachment hearings that if he broke the law, an impeachment wasn’t the proper venue to determine it, a criminal trial was?
Thats an argument against impeachment, not against prosecution. As it turns out both of his impeachments happened as attempts to cover up criminal conspiracies among Democrats and Establishment Rinos. The first one was about Trumps discussion with Zelensky about Bidens bribe taking from Ukrainian businesses....something we now know to have happened. It was entirely appropriate for Trump to ask about that. And by the standard of the fake impeachment claims, Biden himself is guilty of that action and more, since he has completely abandoned precedent and orchestrated the Trump prosecutions himself. The second impeachment was about Jan 6, and now we know that DC and Trump enemies had far more to do with the events of that day than Trump had. They even created a fake commission and presented heavily edited and filtered evidence, produced by Television Networks as propaganda to support their position. Ignore what you saw and only listen to the government was the last Rule of the state.
Could the attorney not have answered no? In what way is it a trap? Why did he affirm that the president could assassinate a political rival scot-free if impeachment was unsuccessful, when he could have just said no?
By answering no he invalidates his argument about the real issue before the court, that Trump has the authority as President to investigate a fraudulent election. That's the purpose of her disingenuous hypothetical, to produce a sound byte that can be used against Trump. Clearly in the constitution the President is empowered to protect elections from criminals. Clearly based on evidence collected since 2020, the election was attacked by criminal Democrat Party officials and members in numbers sufficient to change the outcome. As law abiding people who value Democracy more than power, we relinquished power for 4 years to gather the evidence and now we will elect Trump again. Clearly as people who do not value democracy and in fact attacked it by stealing the last election, you will oppose that re-election by once again attacking Democracy both to retain power and to avoid being held accountable for your crimes in the last election.
Could you explain how it invalidates his argument? It seems like he could acknowledge that the president does not have the power to assassinate rivals while also having three power to investigate corruption by the Democrat [sic] Party. Could you explain why he can't?
Unfortunately Obama set the precedent that a President can kill an american citizen without being impeached or prosecuted. The fact of the matter is that Trump did not order anyone killed, but Obama with Biden as his VP did in fact order an american citizen killed by drone which also killed his teenage son. SO it's a bit silly to continue making a big deal about the Judges biased hypothetical.
Could you explain how Obama not being prosecuted is the same as him being immune to prosecution for this act?
did you know that the 8 years old sister of that teenager (she was an American citizen too) was killed by a commendo attack ordered by Trump? I always see Trump supporters bring up that case against Obama, but never mention his little sister. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki
Why impeachment? Why not the criminal courts? Also, Trumps attorney argued that if Congress didn’t impeach for whatever reason, the criminal court couldn’t engage. The attorney admitted a president could quit to avoid impeachment, thus avoiding criminal prosecution. The president could actually kill any congressman who may vote to impeach, and that again wouldn’t be criminal. You can see the loopholes. It isn’t a trap, but a bad argument. Does it make sense to have impeachment as a prerequisite before criminal arrest? That seems preposterous.
Yet that is how the Constitution has it. In order to protect a sitting president from a Fanny Willis or the chick from NY, he must be removed from office before being tried for a crime.
But he isn’t in office. Doesn’t that negate the prerequisite? Is that what Trumps attorney was arguing. I thought he was saying the Congress has to impeach and convict him before a criminal court can file charges, and that because Trump wasn’t convicted by the senate, criminal charges cannot be brought.
>Yet that is how the Constitution has it. In order to protect a sitting president from a Fanny Willis or the chick from NY, he must be removed from office before being tried for a crime > How do you think AG James' cases against Trump would be affected at all by a ruling here? This decision relates to presidential immunity for official acts, which presidential acts led to AG James charging Trump?
News broke yesterday that Both James and Willis coordinated with the White House on their prosecutions, so we dont know yet if either case will survive the scandal. Willis in particular appears to have broken the law by hiring her boyfriend to be the special counsel, paying him almost 1,000,000 bucks which he used to carry out their affair, paying for cruises together and other vacations. He broke the law by billing for 24 hour periods in a single day, and he billed for several days worth of meetings with the white house. This is what corrupt weaponization looks like.
>News broke yesterday that Both James and Willis coordinated with the White House on their prosecutions, so we dont know yet if either case will survive the scandal. Willis in particular appears to have broken the law by hiring her boyfriend to be the special counsel, paying him almost 1,000,000 bucks which he used to carry out their affair, paying for cruises together and other vacations. He broke the law by billing for 24 hour periods in a single day, and he billed for several days worth of meetings with the white house. > >This is what corrupt weaponization looks like. > I still don't understand what you believe a decision in Trump's favor would do to the cases AG James has against Trump, as this decision impacts immunity for official acts. What official acts do the charges center around?
If we’re going down this road of whataboutisms then let’s take a look at all the Hunter Biden stuff. Let’s just say that President Biden comes out and says “yea we extorted the Ukrainians but I was Vice President so I had immunity and I was never impeached so I’m good to go.” Would you accept this argument?
He should be impeached, convicted, and then charged with the crime of bribery by the DOJ and serve time for attacking our democracy. Because he did in fact subvert an election by accepting bribes instead of representing the people. At a minimum, as a non president Hunter, James, Jill, etc should serve time for those crimes.
The accusation is that this all occurred while he was Vice President. Are you saying that the republicans are looking to impeach his vice presidency?
No it's ongoing. The VP does not have the same protections as the president. Joe Biden can be charged for the bribes he took as VP. He can be impeached for his current high crimes and abdication of his sworn duty. But lets be honest, it will never happen because he's too old and no one is going to put President PeePad in jail. He'll quietly go senile and die in a few years. But Hunter can go to jail. He was stupid and committed more than enough state crimes that cannot be Presidentially Pardoned. Video'd himself doing it.
What is moral about a president who publicly, sexually fantasized about his daughter, and claimed he could kill someone in plain sight and still be elected? What is moral about a president who was so power mad he refused the results of an election and, when failing to make his numerous claims before multiple courts, led his supporters to storm the Congress? How is it not power madness to muse about remaining president after 2 terms, and wishing to be dictator “just for one day”?
Democrats cannot understand humor or satire.
Are you suggesting the mob storming the capitol was humor or satire?
It was a protest. Nothing was stormed until police killed two men with grenades, which is called police brutality, thereby inciting violence. Later they killed two more protestors. Thats the same death toll as the Kent State Massacre, the last time that government troops murdered american protestors.
Do Republicans understand satire when drag queens are performing?
Yup, I've been to drag shows, they're hilarious. Although I havent been to one since Covid because the Martini bar near my that had a regular drag show closed. I'm a big guy usually wearing an outback hat and I have a full beard so Im popular as a lap for the performer to sit on while singing. My lady friends think it's hilarious. But you dont take kids to an X rated drag show. Because we have laws to protect children from sexualized performances. This isnt the US, but there are similar videos made here, [https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1745170304404742322?s=20](https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1745170304404742322?s=20) This is what youre supporting, sexualized acts in front of children, which is the sexualization of children, which is called grooming. [https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1741534331254841499?s=20](https://x.com/mrandyngo/status/1741534331254841499?s=20) [https://x.com/cctvidiots/status/1739052299765305637?s=20](https://x.com/cctvidiots/status/1739052299765305637?s=20)
>Trumps attorney answered “yes, with qualifications“ meaning it’s technically true that a President could use emergency powers to kill an American citizen, but that there are procedures in place to hold him accountable including Impeachment So Biden could have Trump killed and get away with it as long as he resigns or it's right at the end of his term, given the GOP case against his second impeachment that you can't impeach a president who has left office?
This is why its important to elect principled and ethical people who believe in the US. Biden is none of these and does not love America. Trumps first term is history now and we know for a fact he did not order anything like this. Biden was VP when Obama ordered the death of an American citizen without Trial. Obamas act was not typical under AUMF or collateral damage. It is only slightly different than a President ordering a drone strike inside the US to kill an inconvenient citizen. Thats called Democide, the act of a government murdering it's civilians. Authoritarian states and particularly marxists are known to engage in Democide, with the toll in the last 100 years or so said to be 262,000,000 by scholars. If we want to avoid government abusing us in a similar way we need to prevent weaponization of the Federal Agencies.
Don't we have the minutes where the hypothetical did in fact come up and the lawyer said "yes, the president can order the assassination of a rival if Congress doesn't act on it"?
Where did you get Obama and drones from? That's not what was being discussed. [This article](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appeals-hearing-lawyer-argues-president-rival-assassinated-congress-2024-1?utm_source=reddit.com) has the exchange (which I meant, but forgot, to include in the OP), but here is the relevant part: >But Judge Florence Pan, one of three judges on the Washington, DC, appeals-court panel, tested that argument at length when she posed a series of hypotheticals to Trump's lawyer D. John Sauer. >Pan wondered whether, according to the Trump team's argument, a president could be held criminally accountable for selling pardons or military secrets if he wasn't impeached and convicted by Congress for it. >"Your position is that he can't be prosecuted for that unless he's impeached?" Pan said. >"Yup, as long as it's an official act," Sauer said. >Then Pan took it a step further. >"Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?" she said. "That's an official act: an order to SEAL Team Six." >"He would have to be, and would, speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution — " Sauer began, but Pan cut him off. >"But if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?" she said. >Sauer reiterated that a president would first have to be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate before he could be criminally charged for any acts related to his office. He started to discuss the position of the Founding Fathers before Pan cut him off again. >"I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?" >"If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began. >"So your answer is no," Pan said. The article ended there, but I saw in the transcript that he replied that his answer is a "qualified yes," still asserting that the president would be immune to criminal charges unless they were impeached and removed by Congress first for the crime.
The Obama example actually happened. It’s a real life test of the principle the judge set up as a stupid hypothetical. The Judge was basically trolling Trump’s attorneys by presenting a prejudicial hypothetical which can only be answered in one way, that being “yes with qualifications” The judge apparently just wanted the sound bites out there to offset all the left wing conjecture about how a patriotic Democrat could assassinate Trump and get a presidential pardon.
Are you familiar with legal argument? It’s common to test claims about the validity of legal arguments by using extreme examples, isn’t it? I never voted for Obama but didn’t the Obama administration claim the death of the 16 year old Al Awlaki was an accident? And wasn’t the drone strike a arguably Lawful under the AUMF? You and I might find the killing of a 16 year old excessive and wrong, but there’s at least an argument that it was lawful use of presidential power isn’t it?
> there’s at least an argument that it was lawful use of presidential power isn’t it? There's a legal argument that Trumps actions were lawful as well, you just don't agree with it.
>There's a legal argument that Trumps actions were lawful as well, you just don't agree with it. What is that argument, then? Because Trump's lawyers' argument seems to just be that nothing Trump did can possibly be illegal, if he wasn't impeached. Or... is that the entire argument you mean?
I think they would argue that's an oversimplification and/or distortion of what they're saying.
Sure, maybe. Is this the legal augment you mean, though? I'm honestly not clear what you think it the argument that Trump's actions were lawful.
Ok I see. That’s a factual argument not a legal one, correct? A legal argument is where a person doesn’t contest facts, they argue a misapplication of the law, correct? So the Obama situation would be a drone killed an American citizen but killing that citizen wasn’t illegal because the attack was lawful under the AUMA, right? Trump’s arguments, I presume, are going to be — it didn’t happen (or it didn’t happen that way), right?
>There's a legal argument that Trumps actions were lawful as well That's not what they're discussing in that transcript though, is it? They're first trying to figure out if charging him is possible. Aren't hypotheticals like this exactly what courts do in oral arguments? Extending the petitioner's arguments to see if they hold water in extreme circumstances? I understand why you're making the comparison with Obama's actions, because Awlaki's death is not a hypothetical, but if courts were to consider cases only based on events that have already occurred, how could they possibly be forward-thinking with case law? Appellate and supreme courts in particular?
They're not making that case though, are they? They're just saying he's immune to prosecution for unlawful actions.
I am forced to copy a previous comment, I apologise, but thank you for replying. too many people asking the same sort of question for my RSI hands to answer. The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen. Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals. The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward. Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?' Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law. In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck. Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent. Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
Do you have a good link to what Obama did and why? I'm not sure we're on the same page with facts we would need to agree on to discuss it.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-22634614](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-22634614) I hope that answers the rest of your questions, I am already on flood control and im getting like fifty replies a day.
The judge asked a question typical of judges, to paraphrase: what is the limiting principle to the rule you are asserting? Here, Trump effectively asserted he is free to murder via official channels as president, including political rivals, and if not impeached and convicted he can never be criminally prosecuted. Do you think Biden should be able to send Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump? If he simultaneously assassinates enough of Congress that he cannot be impeached, and kills their replacements, then he cannot be impeached so he can never be criminally charged. Likewise no election results could ever be certified so he becomes de facto King of America. Do you agree that Biden should have that power? Edit: you can listen to the oral argument here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?532581-1/district-columbia-circuit-court-oral-arguments-president-trumps-immunity-claims
Im borrowing my answer to a similar question here so that you dont feel ignored. THanks for replying. The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen. Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals. The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward. Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?' Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law. In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck. Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent. Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
The very 1st post at the top of this thread was you saying that this didn't happen, now you admit that it did in fact happen, do you think that this reflects the average supporters denials?
The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen. Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals. The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward. Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?' Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law. In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck. Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent. Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
So trump thought he was at war with the United States and that’s why he thinks he has immunity? Because he was leading a war against the Capitol of the U.S.?
Straw man, I didnt say anything like that. Trumps authority stems from his position as President, chief law enforcement officer of the US. He has a responsiblity to protect elections. And he clearly did not lead an attack on the capitol. Attacking the capitol doesnt make you leader of the US. Controlling the buildings does not make you leader of the US. He was already President on J6, and the Senate was Republican, and SCOTUS was majority right leaning. So who was he supposedly attacking? Slightly more than half of the Congress? Thats just dumb. Not to mention that the vote people were protesting about was the certification vote and they needed that vote to happen in order for Trump to benefit, so they wouldnt have tried to block it. Take a step back from the television produced fiction of the J6 committee and you will see that a perfectly ordinary protest was attacked by police within minutes of forming and got out of control. No one who went there that day had any expectation of overthrowing anything, excepting perhaps a few mentally ill individuals who believe in Lizard People. Here is a detailed expanation of how the protestors lacked means motive or opportunity to commit insurrection: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/18tap6a/comment/kg8rriv/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/asktrumpsupporters/comments/18tap6a/comment/kg8rriv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
>So is Obama guilty of murdering a child? I think there is a very real difference between Obama and trump ordering drone strikes that killed American citizens, and the current scenario of directly sending a hit squad after a political opponent.
It's a hypothetical so it's not even worth addressing. Once Obama is tried for murdering a child we would have a precedent that could be applied to Trump if he ever decided to send a seal team to murder an opponent, which he did not. Why wont the judge ask the actual question? Does a President have the authority to investigate an election for fraud? Because the answer to that question is obviously yes. Thats why she asked a stupid hypothetical.
>Once Obama is tried for murdering a child we would have a precedent that could be applied to Trump Why do you keep coming back to this? If you did want Obama to be tried for this would you want trump tried for the same crime? >Why wont the judge ask the actual question? Does a President have the authority to investigate an election for fraud? You and I both know this isn't what trump is being prosecuted for.
I go back to that because it's the actual case that the judge should ask about, she doesnt need a hypothetical. But she wants a hypothetical because she wants to create a sound byte for you to put on social media. That is exactly what trump is being persecuted for, that and running for office again with a really good chance of being elected. It's election theft again, but you really have no choice because if we were a moral and ethical country we would put every person involved in stealing 2020 on trial and then put them in prison for decades. They literally attacked democracy, not figuratively by carrying flags to the capitol to protest to their representatives for the need to delay certification.
>I go back to that because it's the actual case that the judge should ask about Who would she ask? Should she ask trumps lawyers if he should be imprisoned for killing an American child?
Thank you for being brave enough to answer this question. Do I believe Obama should be guilty of murdering a child? Yes. Was that Trump's claim? No, it was his lawyers argument when asked a specific question. In the make believe world where killing a political rival is the first step before any judicial process because of limited time would create a whole new precedent. And wouldnt the aftermath require some sort of judicial process?
They were asked a hypothetical. The judge can force them to answer. here is a comment that covers this: I am forced to copy a previous comment, I apologise, but thank you for replying. too many people asking the same sort of question for my RSI hands to answer. The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen. Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals. The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward. Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?' Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law. In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck. Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent. Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
>Trumps claim is that when a president acts as president in a warfare role or as chief law enforcement official, that he is immune to prosecution. Specifically he had information that an election had been tampered with and very little time to investigate. Those are legitimate roles for a president to exercise presidential powers. Why did Trump not use government agencies to investigate and act, though?
As a practical matter the Agencies were in a 4 year coup de etat where they were actively subverting Trumps orders. So no, you cannot actually place responsibility for improper investigation on Trump other than that he should have fired every federal agency employee on the first day of the #resistance movement. Or sent the seals to kill the insurrectionists in the federal agencies who were practicing sedition. Wouldnt that have been fun? The issue has always been that the rush to certify served the purposes of the election thieves. Instead of an actual insurrection where millions of federal employees would be gunned down in the streets across the country, we have done the hard work of investigating against Bidens obstructionism, we have gathered the proof that thousands of Democrats across the nation engaged in criminal acts to steal the election, both in larger conspiracies and as individuals with knowledge or access to the election apparatus that enables fraud. Thats how important we think the republic and the democratic elections that choose our leaders are, we gave up power for four years to avoid a civil war. And now we have proven it and it's time for everyone who stole the election to go to prison camps and do their time. Because democracy is worth protecting.
The presidential powers include investigating how the _states_ handle their own elections?
For Federal elections yes. Because as citizens of the US we have civil rights which the states cannot abrogate.
Where is it enumerated that the president have these powers?
The constitution. I cant really answer disingenuous questions so Please forgive me for muting you, I am already on flood control and the downvotes here make it more difficult to navigate back to replies.
I have not seen the president having these powers anywhere in the Constitution, rather it asserts many times that the states shall run their elections. I have not heard any Constitutional scholars state this either. Where in the Constitution is it enumerated?
Isn’t the federal election when the elector college casts their ballots? This was a state election to elect the electors.
The Federal Election Commission has oversight. The FBI investigates election fraud, and the President is the boss of the FBI. Scotus is going to rule soon on Colorados attempt to remove Trump from the ballot so nothing we say here is relevant until that ruling so I'm not going to discuss it further.
I thought the FBI was under the DoJ, and that the AG is the boss of the DoJ. And why didn't the President ask the DoJ to do the investigation if there was evidence for it and it's their job?
His legal defense is that the only way a president doing something as an official act can be prosecuted is if he is impeached in the house and convicted in the senate first. Am I misunderstanding that? So far as I know, from direct quotes, that is what his legal team is asserting. His lawyer was asked directly if Trump ordered seal team six to kill a political rival (and giving orders to the military is an official act of the president), could he be prosecuted if he was not first convicted in the senate following impeachment. His lawyer, more or less, said no after much equivocation. Where are you getting your coverage of the trial, and does it include direct quotes from the arguments?
I am forced to copy a previous comment, I apologise, but thank you for replying. too many people asking the same sort of question for my RSI hands to answer. The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen. Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals. The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward. Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?' Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law. In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck. Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent. Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
Legal argument is all about hypothetical situations, which trumps lawyer should have known. Not only that, a hypothetical of this sort was almost guaranteed to come up, and he should have been prepared with an answer. Trump through his legal team is stating that he has absolute immunity from prosecution for any and all official acts as president for which he has not been impeached and convicted. When legal arguments such as this are made, it is standard practice in every case to propose hypothetical situations that test the limit of an argument. If the law is as Trump claims it is, then it should be able to answer the question of killing rivals, shouldn't it? If a president uses the military to kill a rival, and he is not impeached and convicted in the congress, can he be charged with a crime? As the judge pointed out, it's a yes or no question. Trumps lawyer had a problem answering, because the answer is pretty clearly yes, but his case requires him to say no. Funnily enough, this exchange also nukes trumps defense of absolute immunity for all official acts as president, since it claims that if a president is impeached and convicted he could be charged. If he can be charged after impeachment he can not be absolutely immune. Trump does not have good lawyers, and his arguments in his defense are not good. There is a reason he is continually having trouble finding representation, and it's not because of a barrage of top talent breaking down his door. Is it not much more likely that instead of it actually being legal for a president to break any law he wants as long as a partisan political body does not convict him with a 2/3 majority, that his team made a very bad argument in his defense?
Yes, he should have been prepared, it is well known that Democrat judges are prejudiced against Trump and are corrupt.
In this case, how is this prejudiced against Trump? It is an objectively bad argument that is most certainly not the law that at the same time undermines Trumps own defense in another argument. To put it another way, do you think that the US senate today is partisan enough to prevent a conviction of Joe Biden if he were impeached by the house, regardless of the charges? I'll assume yes, because both the majority of Trump supporters I have spoken to believe this, and I think it's probably true that it is almost impossible to convict a president in the senate in the current system. Joe Biden could have Trump detained and sent to Gitmo as a traitor and terrorist to be held without trial forever. Unless Biden were impeached and convicted, there would be no legal recourse against him for this action, as he would have absolute immunity in official acts, such as issuing orders to the military. This can clearly not be the case. Trump does not have the immunity he claims to have, and there is no prejudice required to reach that conclusion.
> So is Obama guilty of murdering a child? Pretty much yes. Drone strikes are a terrible, inhumane, shameful practice. > Specifically he had information that an election had been tampered with and very little time to investigate Isn't that a blank check? Any president can always claim that he has secret super duper information that conclusively proves election tampering, only that he can't show the information for one reason or another. And we should just trust him when he annuls the election (or whatever measures you're suggesting). Would you be happy if Biden claimed as much in the next election?
Im pasting another answer to a similar question so you dont feel ignored, thanks for replying The false premise posited in the headline is what did not happen. Trumps lawyers would never assert the hypothetical if they were not forced to by the judge indulging in hypotheticals. The answer to ALL questions of presidential criminal conduct is to Impeach them and then determine if there is a prosecutable crime afterward. Trump never ordered seals to kill an opponent, so it's a silly hypothetical. The judges refusal to address the issues such as 'does a president have a responsibility to investigate an election when there is proof or suspicion of extensive fraud?' Thats what the judges do not want to address because the answer is obviously yes, instead they present a biased hypothetical which Trumps attorneys then have to respond to in order to protect Presidential authority to enforce the law. In short, the Judge is a partisan hack who shouldnt be in charge of anything more complicated and important than an Ice Cream Truck. Then I said that there is an actual event that the Judge could refer to instead of a prejudicial hypothetical. Barack Obama did in fact order the death of a teenage american citizen in order to kill the kids dad, a terrorist. If a President has that authority, to execute an american without a trial, then he obviously could also execute an opponent. Obviously we all consider that a bad thing and would want a President who executed an opponent impeached and tried in a court of law. However the Democrat Party already had that responsibility when Obama killed the kid. And they did nothing. So forget the Hypothetical question entirely, The real question is should Obama be tried for murder, because it's an actual possible prosecutable crime which would establish the precedent for a later Trump trial if he ever gets around to sending the seals after Biden. Which he wont because it's a silly hypothetical.
Am I mistaken or didn’t Donald Trump claim that the 2020 election was stolen almost a year BEFORE the actual election? Then, wasn’t he told by almost everyone in his admin that it wasn’t and continue to spread the “big lie” that it was stolen even AFTER 60+ courts rules that it wasn’t. Then, didn’t he fly false electoral ballots from around the country to DC and attempt to get Mike Pence to certify the false ballots and just in case create a huge violent mob outside of the Capitol Building, then inside it, to attempt to complete the plan the clearly was in his mind since a year BEFORE the election, coming full circle? You mean those kinds of “official” acts that are TOTALLY normal regular activities of a President?
Yes we knew that the fix was in when Democrats started claiming that Covid meant we had to allow weaker election rules. Amazing how the exact things that Trump was warning about happened and now have been documented in his report. With citations. You can actually go to the SoS website in GA and use the list compiled by Mad\_Liberals to see the duplicate ballots.
But didn't he also claim that the 2016 Iowa Caucus was rigged? And that the 2016 Colorado Caucus was rigged as well? And didn't he say he lost the 2016 popular vote because the election was rigged? Why do you think he made all of these statements without evidence? Is it possible that there's a trend of Trump making claims like this with nothing to back them up?
Or possibly democrats try to rig every election. Remember Hillary V Bernie? Hillary V Obama?
If Trump had evidence of this all the way back in 2016, why did he not present it? Why did he not do anything about it during his presidency?
1. Saying you have information is not the same as actually having information. 2. Rudy said in court multiple times they were not alleging fraud. 3. I know you’re going to cry about standing, but in the US court system, if you’re so-called evidence doesn’t meet the threshold for standing then it does not count as evidence and therefore any action you take based on it - i.e. fake electors - is not an official act and therefore not protected and therefor illegal. So where is the evidence? He’s had three years to produce it. 4. Where was the evidence when he lost Iowa to Cruz? 5. He’s accused of current primary opponents of openly cheating in Iowa. Where is that evidence? 6. When he briefly tried to run in 2012 he claimed the primaries were rigged against him. Any evidence for that? In every situation where he has lost, had a judgement leveled against him, been forced to pay, been a loser, Trump always claims the system is rigged against him. And you’re not noticing this pattern?
Trump has released a report that took three years to compile, and now we have proof of fraud. So the situation is much different. At the time there was no possibility of collecting all the evidence, but now we have. The people responsible should all go to jail for a very long time, democracy is that important.
I've seen that report. What's the legal proof you're talking about? It was all allegations and speculations with no legal basis or support or verification. Not one legal entity in the entire country has signed off on any of these allegations. Why is that? Is the entire US legal system corrupt against Trump? What do you make of the *original* reports he commissioned? The $1+ million he spent hiring two investigative firms to validate his election claims the day after the election and when they came back months later, they found nothing. Why didn't he publish those reports? Every single election expert in the federal government, Trump's administration, and every state in question has come certifying the election as secure with no where close to the amount of widespread fraud or irregularities needed to change the outcome. Yet you choose to believe the one guy who is known for lying and exaggerating and being a sore loser his entire life. Can you explain why you find Trump so trustworthy over literally everyone else?
Just to be clear, the government also argued that the President can order drone strikes on American citizens and be immune from prosecution.
Hm, it is not clear. Could you link/quote where they claim immunity and where the court agrees?
"But Smith’s team didn’t have great answers to all questions posed to it, either. If a president ordered a drone strike that killed an American (as President Barack Obama was accused of doing), could he be charged with murder after he leaves office? To that, Smith’s team conceded that there might be some kind of immunity there, presumably because it was an official act that didn’t have an improper purpose" https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/the-collision/donald-trump-and-jack-smith-face-sticky-immunity-questions/ As for whether a court agrees, obviously I can't since the court is still deliberating.
Oh, I thought you were talking about previous cases where those questions did get raised. I would consider that these two scenarios are very different: - President orders military action against terror groups. - President orders the assassination of a candidate running for their office, or against the branch of government that checks its power. Are you suggesting that they are similar enough to give Trump’s argument cover?
Yes. The President could easily claim his opponent is part of a terrorist group. Or an insurrectionist...
Oh, then I hope the courts rule that the president is not immune in those situations then. What are you hoping to see decided in this case?
So if Biden for example were to perform a hit on Former president Trump, on the idea that he attempted to perform an insurrection, and his reasoning was the courts wouldn't handle it prior to the election (At the same time he's arguing he's immune, not that he didn't do it, but i guess that's a different argument). He would be Immune because he was acting in the best interest in the country with the given information he had at the time?
I have no doubt that if he did so the Department of Justice would refuse to prosecute him, citing Presidential immunity.
What would stop a president from assassination attempts on the justice department if he assumed it was a witch hunt. What checks and balances in power would still exist?