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

[Fenring]

Actually D.W. I think you're underplaying a literal narrative that's been in the air for a while, which is that Trump is a literal tyrant and may not give up the Presidency when his term is up. I have heard this not once, not twice, but repeatedly from (admittedly) extreme-left sources and even people I know. I can't speak for others here so maybe you're right that they were only discussing the law as a hypothetical case, I was scratching my head reading the thread and tbh I'm not sure there isn't some seriousness here about it being clear and present danger. Not that they think Trump is literally an axe murderer, but rather than he has declared himself above the law and that he will use this "immunity" to act with impunity, violating the law left and right knowing he can't be tried for it. I believe that is the actual concern. I have *never* heard this particular concern - here or elsewhere - framed as being a hypothetical objection to the current state of law. It's always about Trump being a dangerous man.

[DonaldD]

Seriati, why did you put "nonsequitor" in quotes?  I certainly did not misspell "non sequitur"; you did.

Back on topic, you were responding to D.W. when he responded to Crunch:

Nobody is honestly worried about Trump personally murdering anyone.

Presumably, you were disagreeing with this point, which is why I asked you if actually do believe that WS is "honestly worried about Trump personally murdering" someone.  Because Crunch, actually does believe this (or he would have us believe so - "Orange man is so bad that you literally fear he will walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, guns in both hands, firing randomly into crowds and nobody could stop him")

[Seriati]

Nobody is honestly worried about Trump personally murdering anyone.  Only he, and his attorney have floated that hypothetical.

Again, this is literally the thread title, and when I did response in detail on the issues, Wayward literally refocused on the murdering part. 

I put it in quotes to flag it, because it is hard to see how you are correctly using it here.  I think the fairest thing I can say about you calling me out is that you're off topic.

[Crunch]

Those things you’re reading, that’s not what they mean. They mean something completely different. And, if necessary, they will mean something else entirely different again should that become necessary.

That’s the beauty of emotion based arguments, just insist it’s something else all the time.

[DonaldD]

Nobody is honestly worried about Trump personally murdering anyone.  Only he, and his attorney have floated that hypothetical.

Again, this is literally the thread title, and when I did response in detail on the issues, Wayward literally refocused on the murdering part.

No, it is NOT the thread title.  The thread title is "Trump Lawyer Argues President Can't Be Prosecuted for Murder While in Office".  It is not that Trump is expected to murder somebody; it is not that anybody here believes it likely.  It is that the thread title is mooting the extreme case of incontrovertible evidence of serious felony guilt. D.W. summed it up well.

Now, what Crunch wrote was very specific: "Orange man is so bad that you literally fear he will walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, guns in both hands, firing randomly into crowds and nobody could stop him"

Crunch could have written "he could walk down..." in stead of "he will walk down" but he chose the words he chose, and reinforced them with "you literally fear"...

[Fenring]

I hate to say it, DonaldD, but I think your interpretation of the thread title, while technically correct, isn't really accurate in terms of what it's saying between the lines. For instance there hasn't been and never, ever was a thread entitled "Obama could murder someone on 5th Ave and get away with it" because Obama was a chill dude. Even if the law or DOJ policy or whatever was exactly the same as it is now and the same hypothetical about the law would have been worth exploring, zero people did and there were no occasions when people were crying about how he was above the law in that sense. Mostly people here complained about executive overreach or about the ACA. So tell me, why are they "hypothesizing" about Trump being "hypothetically" able to get away with murder, and they weren't doing so for Obama? It must surely be because they literally fear that Trump has been and will continue to commit crimes and get away with it. Maybe not murder, but crimes of a serious nature all the same. So the thread is *definitely* about fearing that Trump will commit crimes and will be above the law; nitpicking that no one is worrying that he'll commit murder, specifically, is a true but misleading correction. Frankly I think they believe he will do worse than murder, i.e. commit treasonous or duplicitous acts in foreign policy for her own purposes. And while I haven't heard it here specifically, I have heard elsewhere the actual fear that Trump will name himself dictator for life. And yes, it's patently absurd as a concern but nevertheless arguments such as these don't exist in a vacuum and have to be understood as existing in an ecosystem where that kind of claim does actually hit my FB feed pretty frequently.

[D.W.]

Actually D.W. I think you're underplaying a literal narrative that's been in the air for a while, which is that Trump is a literal tyrant and may not give up the Presidency when his term is up.

IMO Trump WANTS to be a tyrant.  He admires people with tyranty qualities.  His 'style' is ill suited for democracy, and he knows it.  Will he push things as far as possible?  Yes, but so have those before him, most recently one of the party I favor.  Will he do so without care of how bad it looks?  Here is where he sets himself apart with a resounding YES.  Icing on the cake, he likes to imply or joke about tipping over that tyrant line.  Of civil war, riots in the street, a populous uprising to defend him. 

It's all in terribly bad taste, but that doesn't make him a tyrant.  Our system is pretty good at preventing that.  (as this discussion is pointing out)  We are talking a mass execution of congress for it to go down.  Complicity or at least strife caused paralysis of pretty much all of our law enforcement systems and even military.  It's implausible to the point of being discussed purely for entertainment value and (this is important) being a metaphor for what a prick this guy is for stress testing our system in this way.

Yes, Trump riles up a lot of people.  But no matter how much some people like to trot out OMB and TDS, we will never live up to the craziness with which the left are portrayed in the minds of those using such labels.

[D.W.]

For instance there hasn't been and never, ever was a thread entitled "Obama could murder someone on 5th Ave and get away with it" because Obama was a chill dude.

Or just maybe it's because Obama never jokingly claimed he could do so...   

[Fenring]

IMO Trump WANTS to be a tyrant.  He admires people with tyranty qualities.

Tbh this is probably true of vasts amounts of the population. I think that deep down most people would probably be tyrants if given the means, opportunity, and environment. I don't mean that most people are murderous, but that most people innately have the predispostion to suppose that everyone in the world are essentially bots in an RPG where you're the protagonist, and that "as long as I get mine" the rest is out of sight out of mind. I don't mean that these aren't 'nice people' in a sense but rather that the "only I matter at bottom" mentality is probably the norm once you get past the BS and pretend morals people claim to have.

His 'style' is ill suited for democracy, and he knows it.

Is it? But people don't live in a democracy, they live in a market-based society that has a mechanism for elections which comes into play occasionally. Very little of a person's day-to-day life has anything to do with democracy itself, although obviously the trickle-down of the election system can have effects down here on the ground. But mostly what we see down here on the ground is that rich and famous people are celebrated, that jobs increasingly stink, and that the 'day laboror class' (i.e. wage slaves) is entirely at the mercy of those who are in terms of economic class their betters. This sounds entirely to me that Trump's attitude about "I get what I want because I know how to get people to do what I want" is exactly fitting for our system. Maybe what you mean is that it shouldn't be fitting? That's another matter, and I would agree with you. But from the start I've been seeing him as a dark mirror set up to show us our business culture and our political culture. I don't like it either, but on the other hand I don't blame the mirror.

[DonaldD]

I hate to say it, DonaldD, but I think your interpretation of the thread title, while technically correct, isn't really accurate in terms of what it's saying between the lines.

What it is saying between the lines is that the hypothetical of the President murdering people was being discussed in a court of law. By a judge.  And by the president's lawyer.  And in the very context of what is being discussed here - a debate on the limits of presidential accountability.

For instance there hasn't been and never, ever was a thread entitled "Obama could murder someone on 5th Ave and get away with it" because Obama was a chill dude.

Or just maybe it's because Obama never jokingly claimed he could do so...   

QFT

[Fenring]

What it is saying between the lines is that the hypothetical of the President murdering people was being discussed in a court of law. By a judge.  And by the president's lawyer.  And in the very context of what is being discussed here - a debate on the limits of presidential accountability.

Yes, but what I'm saying is the judge is not sitting there worries that any of this is going to happen: they're just trying to define what the boundaries of the law are. I'm talking about people here - or more broadly the way I hear this type of topic discussed all around - and that I perceive actual fears about Trump, not just hypothetical disagreement about the legal precedents. Be sure you're not pulling a motte and bailey on this one, switching between concern that Trump is unstoppable and will do all sorts of bad things, and between arguing that this is a hypothetical legal concern regarding issues that have preceded Trump.

[DonaldD]

I'm not switching between anything - just pointing out that nobody here believes, as Crunch argues, and as Seriati has yet to deny, that Trump is likely to murder anybody.

That you then go on about the "between the lines" possible interpretation doesn't change that Crunch's words are explicit, clear and unsupported. Nor that Seriati disagreed with D.W.s push-back against that unsupported statement.

[Fenring]

I'm not switching between anything - just pointing out that nobody here believes, as Crunch argues, and as Seriati has yet to deny, that Trump is likely to murder anybody.

That you then go on about the "between the lines" possible interpretation doesn't change that Crunch's words are explicit, clear and unsupported. Nor that Seriati disagreed with D.W.s push-back against that unsupported statement.

It feels like a motte and bailey, among other reasons, because you're insisting that no one really believes Trump will murder anyone (which we sort of knew already) while there are still concerns about Trump's supposed actual criminality and that being President means he's above the law for those things. So it's "let's talk about him being above the law for something like murder" which then converts into "no, no, we know he's no murderer, this was all hypothetical; but where the first scenario was really implying that he is a criminal and that he's immune to prosecution for it, with murder just being a placeholder for 'most extreme case of stuff we do think he's actually guilty of'. The "we don't actually think he'll murder anyone" seems to me to be a misdirect away from the fact that many (maybe not you) think he has already committed crimes and will continue to do so, using his immunity to get away with it.

[TheDrake]

I think we see a President who:

* Questions the validity of elections
* Diminishes and dismisses the free press
* Ignores Presidential norms
* Degrades the role of Chief of Staff
* Says positive things about dictators
* Loves a military parade
* Suggests that judges can't be trusted
* Calls original articles of the Constitution phony
* Regularly purges cabinet members who contradict him
* Thinks people should routinely ignore Congressional subpoenas

I think someone can be forgiven for being at least a little concerned about his tyrant tendencies. That doesn't mean that many people think that he's about to engineer a coup if he loses the next election.

[Seriati]

Nobody is honestly worried about Trump personally murdering anyone.  Only he, and his attorney have floated that hypothetical.

Again, this is literally the thread title, and when I did response in detail on the issues, Wayward literally refocused on the murdering part.

No, it is NOT the thread title.  The thread title is "Trump Lawyer Argues President Can't Be Prosecuted for Murder While in Office".  It is not that Trump is expected to murder somebody; it is not that anybody here believes it likely.  It is that the thread title is mooting the extreme case of incontrovertible evidence of serious felony guilt. D.W. summed it up well.

Maybe go back and re-read the early thread.  I said, after I responded to the general concept that we in fact have a process to remove a President if they commit serious crimes in office, which does IN FACT allow them to BE PROSECUTED.  Wayward literally doubled down, and posited Trump murdering the Senate to prevent an impeachment.

I don't know why you have such a bee in your bonnet, but it's absurd to keep acting like it's not on the table, when I LITERALLY had to respond to the hypo that our systems make not be adequate because the President could murder Congress.

I couldn't care less about whether anyone really thinks Trump will kill someone, the point is that in this thread that's exactly the fact pattern they were arguing AND literally, I argued the more sensible points and they drug it back to that nonsense so I have ZERO tolerance for being gaslighted on the point - especially when my response to which you took affront was literally pointed to the arguments that were IN FACT advanced in this thread.

Now, what Crunch wrote was very specific: "Orange man is so bad that you literally fear he will walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, guns in both hands, firing randomly into crowds and nobody could stop him"

Yes, that thought seems to be the case.  People are so discombobulated by Trump that it literally breaks their brains and they are not capable of applying a neutral, fair or consistent principal once he's involved.

Crunch could have written "he could walk down..." in stead of "he will walk down" but he chose the words he chose, and reinforced them with "you literally fear"...

Like wow, thanks grammar police, you got no problem with the argument asserting a Constitutional defect because Trump might murder Congress in cold bold put forward as if it were sensible, but using "literally" for effect is the end of the world.

[DonaldD]

It feels like a motte and bailey, among other reasons, because you're insisting that no one really believes Trump will murder anyone (which we sort of knew already)

Except "we" actually do not agree on that - Crunch clearly pretends, at the very least, to believe it.

[DonaldD]

I don't know why you have such a bee in your bonnet, but it's absurd to keep acting like it's not on the table, when I LITERALLY had to respond to the hypo that our systems make not be adequate because the President could murder Congress.

I'm not sure why you don't understand that a hypothetical literally means that the posited scenario does not require that it occur in reality... 

[Fenring]

It feels like a motte and bailey, among other reasons, because you're insisting that no one really believes Trump will murder anyone (which we sort of knew already)

Except "we" actually do not agree on that - Crunch clearly pretends, at the very least, to believe it.

You mean Crunch believes you believe that Trump will murder someone? If so I think we can bypass that, if what you're doing is nitpicking my "which we sort of knew already". If you want to omit him from the "we" go right ahead, but that's not really the issue I'm raising, which is that there is a direct threat perceived from Trump and that the question is not truly hypothetical for you. Saying you don't really think murder is the threat is a misdirect since you (apparently) do seem to think there is a threat.

[D.W.]

I don't know why you have such a bee in your bonnet, but it's absurd to keep acting like it's not on the table, when I LITERALLY had to respond to the hypo that our systems make not be adequate because the President could murder Congress.

I didn't realize I was the one with a bee in my bonnet.   

To me this is akin to how we pick each other's metaphors apart when we are talking about something else, not literally stated. 

As to the sated, literal hypothetical? 

One or more Secret Service agents or sgt. at arms, on hand would snuff him out and accept the consequences for the good of his country should Trump, seriously, and literally start trying to execute congress... personally.  The End.   

[DonaldD]

I suppose we could bypass that, Fenring, except Seriati was responding to D.W.'s response to Crunch's nutty claim, and then you inserted yourself into the same discussion... and now, you are asking us to ignore that this whole aside was based on Crunch's nutty claim.

Sure we can ignore Crunch's claim... just like we should then just ignore D.W. responding to that claim, and Seriati responding to D.W.'s response, and my responses to Seriati's on the topic... although it also sounds like Seriati just might believe that WS' hypothetical means WS actually believes Trump is a murderer in waiting, too...

[D.W.]

If you want to omit him from the "we" go right ahead, but that's not really the issue I'm raising, which is that there is a direct threat perceived from Trump and that the question is not truly hypothetical for you. Saying you don't really think murder is the threat is a misdirect since you (apparently) do seem to think there is a threat.

I think there is a threat of a threat.    Meaning I fully expect him to make threats in line with him doing some extra-legal power grab; still short of murder, "but hey, you know, people love him, and some of those people... you know, they have guns.  And those people, let me tell you, they will fight for me." 

But at the end of the day, he'll be out, someone else will be in.  He'll do something, or at least propose something, wacky to cover his ass, it won't work, and we swear in the next POTUS.  Or maybe an ally of his will be in office next, and they will sweep any (alleged) crimes under the rug so "the nation can move on", and that's that, much to the outrage for that person's full term in office.

[D.W.]

means WS actually believes Trump is a murderer in waiting, too...

Trump DOES have a concealed carry permit, doesn't/didn't he?  I seem to recall reading that.    So who knows!  haha

[Seriati]

I think we see a President who:

* Questions the validity of elections

Yep that was a horrible thing, that he wouldn't promise to respect the election in advance.  Oh wait, we've listened to almost 3 years of complaints from those that complained it was horrible.  How's that work?

Is it my imagination, or has Stacey Abrams conceded her election yet?  I count several D Presidential candidates who've backed her on that.

* Diminishes and dismisses the free press

Lol, what free press?  You mean the DNC State press?

* Ignores Presidential norms

Some, but sometimes that's a good thing, others a bad one.

* Degrades the role of Chief of Staff

So what?  That's literally a role that is supposed to be what a President wants it to be.

* Says positive things about dictators

Is this about which dictators?  Last I checked every President has had nice things to say about dictators.

* Loves a military parade

And?

* Suggests that judges can't be trusted

Like it's somehow a secret that some judges are more influenced by politics than the law?  You must of missed when a TX judge ruled Obamacare unConstitutional and the Dems from Nancy on town called it out, or when the Senate Democrats sent a letter to the SC threatening them if they decide wrongly.

* Calls original articles of the Constitution phony

Yes, he called the way the emoluments clause has been asserted phony.  And he's right, the interpretation is phony.  There's plenty of legit argument there, but the sound bite sounds better without the context for you?

* Regularly purges cabinet members who contradict him

And?  The purpose of the cabinet is to carry for his policies, not to undermine them.

* Thinks people should routinely ignore Congressional subpoenas

So do I, at least until they have a proper basis.  Moreover, I think we retouch on the lack of Constitutional protections for witnesses that seems to be the belief for Congressional subpeonas.  As far as I know, the court created Congress's power to subpoena out of whole cloth and they should put limits on it.  Congress has subpeona powers to perform it's legitimate purposes not to be misused to support the DNC political goals.

How funny is it that Congress wants to impeach Trump for a supposed personal benefit, where he's actually doing his job, and there are absolutely no controls on the open political benefits that the House Democrats are seeking to gain.  They've openly admitted that their strategy is political and about the election, specifically about keeping Trump from being elected, which is about a hundred times more evidence of corruption of their offices than they have on Trump.  Yet, crickets from the ethics brigade.

I think someone can be forgiven for being at least a little concerned about his tyrant tendencies. That doesn't mean that many people think that he's about to engineer a coup if he loses the next election.

I think seeing tyranny in what Trump has done is a pretty big delusion.  He's honored erroenous court decisions by appealing them through the process, where previous executives would have acted differently on a separation of powers theory.  He allowed his control of the Justice Department to be undermined for over 2 years in a fake investigation that seriously undermined his own priorities and getting to the truth behind an illegal spying investigation.

You claim he's purged his cabinet, which he's entitled to do, but he's not cleaned house at the administrative agencies even with ample evidence they are undermining him and not doing their duty.

He's pulled our troops out of situations, rather than putting them in harms way.

Where exactly is the "tyranny"?

[D.W.]

This is like one of those color blind tests.  We know we are both looking at the same thing, but see entirely different pictures.  Every once in awhile, if I squint and turn my head just right, I can KINDA see what they are talking about before I lose it again.

TheDrake:  I'm concerned because of {list}
Seriati:  I'm comfortable with Trump because of how he's addressed {list}
 

[Fenring]

I suppose we could bypass that, Fenring, except Seriati was responding to D.W.'s response to Crunch's nutty claim, and then you inserted yourself into the same discussion... and now, you are asking us to ignore that this whole aside was based on Crunch's nutty claim.

Crunch's claim (that some seem to think Trump would go on a murder spree) is not something we need to take seriously in order for me to respond to your comment, which brought that specific claim back into the general, especially here:

It is not that Trump is expected to murder somebody; it is not that anybody here believes it likely.  It is that the thread title is mooting the extreme case of incontrovertible evidence of serious felony guilt. D.W. summed it up well.

So no, I don't need to be specifically focusing on Crunch's minor comment in order to respond to your post which included the above. Your reference to D.W.'s post also made your post more general about the whole thread, so I don't see how you conclude that I was *only* replying in context of a discussion of that one comment of Crunch's and that anything else is off-topic. I was replying about the state of the thread in general, and yes, I can both choose to ignore one comment of Crunch's while still replying to your point that included a generalization. And yes, I think the 2nd quote in this post does seem to tread into motte and bailery territory for reasons I've already explained.

[Seriati]

This is like one of those color blind tests.  We know we are both looking at the same thing, but see entirely different pictures.  Every once in awhile, if I squint and turn my head just right, I can KINDA see what they are talking about before I lose it again.

TheDrake:  I'm concerned because of {list}
Seriati:  I'm comfortable with Trump because of how he's addressed {list}
 

I haven't made much of a secret of believing that alot of the "troubling" things Trump does don't hold up with scrutiny.  On the tyranny point, I've enjoyed Trump's Presidency specifically because it seems to be unwinding a bunch of dangerous trends.  Obama ruled more through decrees on major events than his predecessors and used the mechanisms of government in more openly political ways than his recent predecessors and very likely if Hillary had been elected that trend would have continued with the support of the Dems in Congress and a completely incurious press.

With Trump on the other hand, just about every exercise of executive power has been challenged, the ability to abuse the bureacracy has been limited and rolled back and transparency has been far far greater.  I said it years ago, either Trump will cut back on executive authority or Congress and the courts will do it for him, and that's exactly what we've seen.

I find it hard to relate to the claim that Trump is moving us to tyranny against that backdrop, which is why I ask for specifics.

[D.W.]

Well said. 

Kinda like surfing the seedy parts of the internet to check if your virus and popup blocker really works as well as advertised or not.   

[Fenring]

Well said. 

Kinda like surfing the seedy parts of the internet to check if your virus and popup blocker really works as well as advertised or not.   

Now I'm starting to hope that Trump declares another unofficial war...sorry POLICE ACTION so that the Congress can squash that and permanently rescind that practice. In fact I should put together a list of unacceptable practices that have been normalized, as Trump is the perfect guy to try to implement them and have people go crazy with "how does he have all these powers?!!" and to do something about them. That would never happen when either side has its best boy in the oval office, so Trump is uniquely in the position to specifically be opposed in areas where the President should be opposed.

[D.W.]

For awhile I was hoping similar logic would force Congress to 'solve' the immigration issue.  But it seems nothing can convince either side to fix something they don't want fixed...  We've just upped the stakes on how the topic can be leveraged.   

[Seriati]

For awhile I was hoping similar logic would force Congress to 'solve' the immigration issue.  But it seems nothing can convince either side to fix something they don't want fixed...  We've just upped the stakes on how the topic can be leveraged.   

The Courts undermined the fix.  They suspended Trump's revocation of DACA (which makes no sense legally), which gave the Dems what they wanted without a negotiation.  Absent that they would have resolved.  The SC is taking it up, but too late to do any good, cause they'll decide the case early next year and no one on either said will be willing to negotiate a compromise with the election so close.

[D.W.]

That's just it.  I wasn't holding my breath for a compromise.  I was hoping with Trump holding a gun to the head of our nation / its immigrant population / Congress, that they would make a knee-jerk reaction, even if nobody was happy with it, just to stop him. 

[TheDeamon]

Actually D.W. I think you're underplaying a literal narrative that's been in the air for a while, which is that Trump is a literal tyrant and may not give up the Presidency when his term is up. I have heard this not once, not twice, but repeatedly from (admittedly) extreme-left sources and even people I know. I can't speak for others here so maybe you're right that they were only discussing the law as a hypothetical case, I was scratching my head reading the thread and tbh I'm not sure there isn't some seriousness here about it being clear and present danger. Not that they think Trump is literally an axe murderer, but rather than he has declared himself above the law and that he will use this "immunity" to act with impunity, violating the law left and right knowing he can't be tried for it. I believe that is the actual concern. I have *never* heard this particular concern - here or elsewhere - framed as being a hypothetical objection to the current state of law. It's always about Trump being a dangerous man.

The funny thing in all of this is rewind to 8 years ago, and many of the scenarios being floated are direct mirrors of right-wing concerns about Obama. Obviously specifics are different, but the gist of it is the same. Only this time the media isn't cheer leading everything PotUS does. So I'm not concerned. If the media changes positions, I'd be worried, but that's not likely to happen.

[Wayward Son]

TDS manifests in humorous ways some times.

People with TSS shouldn't comment on people with TDS, Crunch. 

Well, let’s walk through this.  Orange man is so bad that you literally fear he will walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, guns in both hands, firing randomly into crowds and nobody could stop him. The bad orange man’s murderous desires, obvious to all, are unstoppable. Bad orange man is above the law. He’ll kill us all and get away with it. That’s the premise here and it’s a childishly absurd one.

Never mind that this type of immunity to prosecution while in office has applied to every president and is absolutely nothing new, it’s only the bad orange man that has you suddenly worried. There is nothing new or different here, nothing that should surprise or frighten normal, reasoning, people. This is a purely emotional thread, based on fear and hate. It’s nothing but “orange man bad” as parroted by NPC’s across the media. It’s a manifestation of TDS to suddenly find something that’s been applicable to every president is now a problem.

More TSS on top of TSS.  Talk about doubling-down! 

[Wayward Son]

But consider the principle.  He's above the law unless Congress removes him from office...

What if, instead of killing a man on 5th Avenue, he shoots most of Congress.  Who would have authority to remove him from office?

Or you could, you know go read my first few responses which were completely reasonable and addressed the actual solution to the less "extremist" version.  You know, impeachment, removal and then indictment.

I really don't know what to say to you guys.  The threads premise, and how Wayward has defended it are clear as day, yet you seem to want to gaslight me on the whole thing.

For the record, no, I'm not "worried" that Trump will shoot anyone, much less Congress.  He's not that kind of guy.  (If he'd do it, he'd have one of his lawyers do it, but that's another topic... )

I'm pointing out that the legal principle (which, BTW, is just an interpretation of the Constitution, not in the Constitution itself--look it up) would make it legal for the President to shoot people, by shooting the only people who could remove him from office and make him subject to the judicial system.  The "perfect murder," if you will.

It's just another way of saying "THIS THEORY IS *$%#@)^ STUPID!!!!"  Because it theoretically makes someone above the law.  And in my America, no one is (legally) above the law.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was seriously concerned about Trump shooting Congress.  My apologies if I somehow gave you that impression.  No one is trying to gaslight you.

[TheDrake]

Yeah it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for a sitting President to go to the precinct for questioning. I guess that makes him or her "above the law" in some sense, because the law doesn't apply equally to a President.

BTW, that sort of behavior is the kind that could lead to a dictatorship at some point in the future. I don't think the US Marshals are going to storm the White House to take a President into custody. Or maybe the President just pardons himself, which hasn't really been resolved legally. If a President did pardon himself, I suppose that the remedy would be..... wait..... impeachment.

It's absurd to talk about killing Congress. Let's say all that stuff happened. You do know that Governors can just appoint new Senators, right? Or is the President now going to lie in wait for them to take the oath of office and BLAMMO!

Picture something even more ridiculous. The President is convicted by a jury, and remanded to a Federal prison (federal, because he shot somebody in the Capitol Building). The courts don't let him pardon himself. But in this world, we have stipulated that the Congress was unwilling to impeach him, and the Cabinet was unwilling to remove him. So I guess now he's going to be running the country from there. He can really run the place, because secret service is still guarding him - because he's still the President.

[Crunch]

It’s just another way of saying "THIS THEORY IS *$%#@)^ STUPID!!!!"  Because it theoretically makes someone above the law.  And in my America, no one is (legally) above the law.

Key word, “theoretically”. In the real world, it’s not true. Never was. That’s why you weren’t worried about it until now.

Let’s stay consistent, “And in my theoretical America, no one is (legally) above the theoretical law.” 

Except, that’s really not true, is it?

[Wayward Son]

So do you feel comfortable about that?

That every four years, we elect one person in our nation to be above the law?  A person who cannot be touched, unless Congress removes him?  An emperor, a king who could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and if Congress agrees, is not subject to our laws, at least for his term in office?

That is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned.  They did not write it into the Constitution.  They did not intend for us to have a king, for however long.  And, yes, we never had to consider it before because we never had a President before who might have considered using it before.  Who had his lawyers argue that, why yes, if he shot someone on 5th Avenue, he could not be charged with murder while he is President. 

That's the guy you elected.  Someone who would use that to avoid being investigated.  Makes you wonder what he does intend to do with that power. 

[cherrypoptart]

Democrats are showing us the alternative and proving it's even worse. If the President didn't have that protection there is no doubt they'd throw one frivolous lawsuit after another at him.

[D.W.]

An emperor, a king who could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and if Congress agrees, is not subject to our laws, at least for his term in office?

But the law would kick in after that term...  It's not like it's diplomatic immunity where you can run someone over and never face justice for instance.

[TheDeamon]

An emperor, a king who could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and if Congress agrees, is not subject to our laws, at least for his term in office?

But the law would kick in after that term...  It's not like it's diplomatic immunity where you can run someone over and never face justice for instance.

Indeed, it isn't lifetime immunity, it only lasts until the term of office expires. And considering PotUS has been term limited since the 1950's, THAT concern is no longer relevant.

[TheDrake]

Wondering if any of my points will be addressed, or if there will be more "above the law" cackling.

[LetterRip]

Indeed, it isn't lifetime immunity, it only lasts until the term of office expires. And considering PotUS has been term limited since the 1950's, THAT concern is no longer relevant.

If the Supreme Court allows self pardons and there is no tolling - then it is indeed life time immunity for certain crimes.

[TheDrake]

Nixon got immunity by way of Ford. Did that make him above the law?

[D.W.]

Tricky question.  Above justice?  Yes.  The law?  Well pardons are part of the law... so, no?

[Fenring]

I would worry a lot more about the people who break the law and no one sees it, compared to Trump who can't blow his nose without it being called the first sign of a dictatorship. I guess I'm a little unclear about what the worriers here are actually worried about. Is the concern for the power of the office of the President in general? Is it about whether that office has the ability to somehow convert itself into a dictatorship? Is it that powerful people (including but not limited to the President) seem to be immune to accountability? Or is it literally that Trump can and will commit crimes, and get away with it due to being a President? Or is the concern that Presidential pardons seem wide-reaching (e.g. Nixon)?

I would like to know which of these is actually the objection here, because all I can gather so far is "Trump can get away with murder, we can't allow this to happen!" But I have no idea what the thing is you feel you can't allow to happen, since you don't think he'll commit murder.

[DonaldD]

Well, it seems clear to me that one thing that people here "can't allow to happen", or can't allow to continue happening, is using one's elected office to request foreign governments to interfere in domestic US elections; especially to request them to work against one's political opponents.

[D.W.]

I think for most of the layman here it's the divide between these:
Process of impeachment vs Trial for breaking one or more laws.

If you cannot prosecute while in office (something that seems reasonable as it really could bog down a president such that they couldn't do their job), then treating impeachment as a trial makes zero sense. 

Likewise, bogging down a president / administration such that it may as well be a trial, such that it defeats the whole intent of the impeachment process, also makes zero sense.

For me at least, there should be a non "remove you from office" power that forces a president / administration to cooperate with an investigation into wrong doing that is short of that measure.  Congress or outside litigants cannot spam a president with lawsuits but they SHOULD be able to petition Congress that a particular charge is serious enough that this blanket protection (or hold) should be suspended.


Now all of that wish list aside, what is happening now is political theater.  They know they won't remove him from office unless something truly stunning is revealed soon.  And nothing indicates that it will be.  Do I think he abused his power for political reasons against Biden?  You bet, but the Senate is gonna let that slide no matter what evidence the inquiry finds or what they recommend.  So they will just leak or make public what they want and use it to sway public opinion.  Because as everyone knows the proper response to an abuse of power is to abuse the system put in place to stop them...   

[TheDrake]

I think that from my perspective, what we can't allow to happen is a refusal to respond to subpoenas. Regardless of whether that can result in criminal prosecution, which I don't think it should. The people need to know who is leading the country, whether they cheat on their taxes, or lie about how much money they make. I want Congress to have the power to dig up dirt on the President. And it doesn't matter which President that is. I wouldn't want Reagan to avoid investigations into Iran-Contra. I wouldn't want Obama to avoid investigations into Benghazi. I wouldn't want Harding to avoid investigations into Teapot Dome.

[Fenring]

Well, it seems clear to me that one thing that people here "can't allow to happen", or can't allow to continue happening, is using one's elected office to request foreign governments to interfere in domestic US elections; especially to request them to work against one's political opponents.

So your objection isn't to any of the above things, but is about the idea that while running for President any candidate becomes immune to investigations, especially those involving the sitting President? This sounds like the opposite position taken by others here, which is that the current level of immunity is too much. But it sounds like you would prefer increased immunity, and for more people. Or am I mistaken?

[D.W.]

Can you unwind that a bit Fenring?  That sounds entirely contrary to the point DonaldD seemed to make with the quoted text.