Trump Lawyer Argues President Can't Be Prosecuted for Murder While in Office

[Crunch]

Not only is it a stupid proposition, it’s not even a real one. smh

[TheDeamon]

The New York investigation stinks, but then I'm going off of memory, as I recall the State AG had previously made clear his intention to run Trump through a wringer, and not just Trump, but everyone associated with him. His basis for doing so basically boiled down to "He won an election I don't think he should have."

Presidential immunity is a side-issue in this case involving the State of NY, private citizen protections against abuse of investigative authority for purely political objectives is (un-ironically) on the agenda here.

The NY Case is almost entirely political in nature, and only exists because Trump is PotUS. Thus making it a prime candidate for a case which should wait until Trump(and the AG) are both out of office.

[NobleHunter]

The New York investigation stinks, but then I'm going off of memory, as I recall the State AG had previously made clear his intention to run Trump through a wringer, and not just Trump, but everyone associated with him. His basis for doing so basically boiled down to "He won an election I don't think he should have."

Presidential immunity is a side-issue in this case involving the State of NY, private citizen protections against abuse of investigative authority for purely political objectives is (un-ironically) on the agenda here.

The NY Case is almost entirely political in nature, and only exists because Trump is PotUS. Thus making it a prime candidate for a case which should wait until Trump(and the AG) are both out of office.

Which seems like a valid argument to make. That's not what Trump's lawyers are arguing though. It's the difference between "
"shouldn't" and "can't." It may be true that the Court shouldn't allow this to continue while Trump is President but that's not nearly the same thing as saying the Court can't allow the investigation to continue.

[Crunch]

Back to the point of this thread, Obama murdered Anwar Al-awaki and his son. You guys in a tither over Trump’s lawyer talking about it actually defended Obama literally doing it.

[TheDrake]

That's not remotely similar and you know it. Unless you think all collateral damage is murder. And that the soldiers are war criminals

[Fenring]

Unless you think all collateral damage is murder. And that the soldiers are war criminals

Taking an extreme position like this renders you incapable of fine distinctions. Instead of using words like "all" I would suggesting trying "some", and then you'll more likely find an agreeable proposition.

[TheDrake]

How about the cited example then? Was Obamas drone pilot a war criminal?

[Fenring]

How about the cited example then? Was Obamas drone pilot a war criminal?

Let's ask a different question: why is there so much burnout of drone operators, with many of them saying they didn't feel good doing what they were doing?

[TheDrake]

You're not wrong. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/19/former-drone-operators-say-they-were-horrified-by-cruelty-of-assassination-program/

There's still a difference between callous indifference and intent. Probably not a difference that matters to grieving relatives.

[Crunch]

That's not remotely similar and you know it. Unless you think all collateral damage is murder. And that the soldiers are war criminals

Al-Awaki, his son, and Amir Khan were all killed in the same strike. All were Americans, none were afforded due process. They were summarily executed  by Obama without trial or defense. They were not even indicted by a grand jury nor were any charges brought against them in criminal proceedings.

What do you call that?

[TheDrake]

The government made an argument. Why post it here when I know you'll just reject it? Assuming it was illegal, then the courts could be a remedy (though not a legal proceeding against the President personally) or ultimately impeachment for abuse of authority. I don't recall a whole lot of Republicans coming out to hold him accountable, in fact most of them praised him for it. I think the ACLU was the only organization that really pressed him on it.

Most people thought it was a pretty good idea to assassinate someone intent on killing Americans and unfortunate that his kid got killed.

[Crunch]

So if Trump “makes an argument” then you’re ready to sign off on his murdering people. TDS is ironic sometimes.

[TheDrake]

I thought they made a decent argument. One that a judge signed off on. Trump makes lousy arguments most of the time. I normally consider the arguments point by point. Most recently, his lawyer made an argument that a sitting President should not be subject to prosecution while in office. I agreed with that argument. I'm willing to sign off on a President killing our mortal enemies, subject to judicial and Congressional oversight.