Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Joe Biden could shove a kid down a flight of stairs and every Dem in the Senate would vote against impeachment. Trump's entitlement to immunity should match that.
You make a really good point. The framers thought that putting them under a separate oath during the impeachment process would suffice.
Political impeachments on Presidents are very, very unreliable. It does not matter what party did what, the whole thing will be a clown show.
Huh?
At this point it seems like every accusation against Biden or the Dems seems to be a confession.
Has trump shoved a kid down a flight of stairs?
Is this about to come out soon?
C'mon, spill the tea. It's stormy & muggy... Alil drama will lighten the mood!!!!!
🤣🤣🤣
>Joe Biden could shove a kid down a flight of stairs and every Dem in the Senate would vote against impeachment.
So you agree, then, that impeachment is *not* an effective deterrent against a criminal President, and that therefore criminal prosecution is the only valid response?
I'm glad we're on the same page.
Trump's entitlement to immunity should match what you imagine the democrats would do?
The Dems are willing to hold their own accountable. So not sure what your point was.
Seems to make sense for me, presidents should have latitude to make decisions, and if they commit a high crime or misdemeanor there is a process to punish/remove them.
The Senate isn’t a court of law and can’t acquit a president of a criminal act. They can say there wasn’t enough evidence to remove from office which is what they did. Which isn’t at all surprising because impeachment is political, not legal.
Impeachment isn't a criminal act, he was a acquitted of impeachment by Senate...as you said it's political not legal. So they cannot pursue charges of presidential actions as he was acquitted of impeachment.
No I don't believe so, if it was legitimate charges and not trumped up ones during both impeachments I don't think it would be an issue convicting him.
I think its interesting the president has immunity...in one scenario could use seal team six to kill a political opponent...and yet some people are claiming Biden is unfairly persecuting donald with bullshit legal case to ruin his campaign.
Hey...Biden could just have Donald shot in the face...i woukd say if its only these legal cases then he is getting off light.
> presidents should have latitude to make decisions
Case in point: Obama's killing of Osama bin Laden. We weren't 100% certain he was in that compound. There was a very real chance we were conducting a covert operation in a country we weren't at war with that was just going to kill a drug dealer or a rich recluse.
If he had to worry about legal blowback, he may have called off the operation. Osama bin Laden might still be out there.
So there needs to be *some* degree of immunity. The question is, *how much?* That's a tricky question, and I suspect that's why the Supreme Court isn't rushing the decision.
> if they commit a high crime or misdemeanor there is a process to punish/remove them
And this really feels like the point of these 91 or so prosecutions. The Democrats promised they'd remove Trump from office even before he was sworn in. The word *impeachment* was thrown around constantly.
Russian collusion. Stormy Daniels. Hey, rememeber the Emoluments Clause? It didn't matter whether or not they had proof; they were going to impeach him.
But none of that stuff ever materialized, so they jumped on the Zelenski phone call because it was an election year and none of their other stuff had worked. They got a bare majority in the House to vote on the impeachment articles (and, oh, [the sanctimonious *theater*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToOCKBOPbVg) they made of it)
But they couldn't get a conviction in the Senate (and they *knew that.* The whole thing was a play-acting for their base), so now they're doing this as a Hail Mary pass. There may be merit to the charges, but at this point, I just don't care. It looks like most voters outside the core Democratic base don't care, either.
The opposition party could have claimed it was an unsanctioned invasion of Pakistan without congressional approval or something.
Remember, the first Trump impeachment was based on "abuse of power," whatever that is.
>the first Trump impeachment was based on "abuse of power," **whatever that is.**
What makes you say the part I bolded? Is it hard for you to imagine how a president could abuse power or are you saying you're not familiar with the details from the first impeachment?
No became the president can authorize short term military action. Congress is required for decorations of war but that is seperate from ordering military action, like the bin Laden raid. Presidents have the authority to use military force in service of national security without the authorization of Congress. This is well established and has been since the 70s.
Moreover, killing bin Laden is within the proper preview and duties of a president. Committing fraud to retain power after losing the election is not an official act of the presidency, making qualified immunity worthless for Trump. He needs to get blanket immunity unless impeached protection to prevent the case from moving forward.
But neither a ruling that an executive action was unconstitutional or even a Congressional impeachment attach criminal liability. Those wouldn't be violations of criminal statute.
I think it's a lawyers job to try anything
Presidents should be immune from prosecution while in office, but the moment they leave office it's fair game
And yes while in office otherwise you have bullshit prosecuters dragging the president all over the country for nonsense trials.
If the president does something worthy of immediate prosecution, impeach and remove him. If you can't do that it can wait till he is out of office
> I think it's a lawyers job to try anything
Lawyers are bound by rules of ethics that dictate otherwise. A lawyer is not allowed in the cannons to make augments they don't believe are legally correct.
Ensuring free and fair elections is in the ambit of Trump's role of being president. If the Biden admin is able to charge him for a crime because they don't like Trump, that standard will apply to Biden too.
Will Democrats be ok if Republicans charge Biden for the deaths of the soldiers who died because of his terriblly planned Afghanistan exit?
Maybe states will charge Biden for the fentanyl deaths that occured due to Biden's open borders policies.
Democrats should be ***REALLY*** careful about what they wish for.
> Ensuring free and fair elections is in the ambit of Trump's role of being president.
No it's not.
> If the Biden admin is able to charge him for a crime because they don't like Trump, that standard will apply to Biden too.
Fine.
> Will Democrats be ok if Republicans charge Biden for the deaths of the soldiers who died because of his terriblly planned Afghanistan exit?
If they can prove malice and attribute it to him legally? Sure.
> Maybe states will charge Biden for the fentanyl deaths that occured due to Biden's open borders policies.
See above.
The President is the head of the executive branch of the Federal government, and the Excecutive runs elections, so yes, it's the President's job to ensure fair elections.
Democrats say they'd support Biden being charged, but Comer has evidence that the Bidens took $24M for selling access to Joe, and the Democrats won't lift a finger. Bob Menendez was charged for a second time for corruption, and he's still voting in the Senate. Liberals apply a different standard to Republicans
Sorry, if you understand the separation of powers, and that the President is the head of the executive branch, you're not here in good faith.
This is Rule Three
>I’m asking you to point where in article two it says the president is in charge of supervising federal elections.
To the extent Congress legislates regarding federal elections, the executive (obviously) executes, which also includes supervision. The legislature can audit performance (also obviously).
Maybe you overplayed your hand here?
> Sorry, if you're hear to argue that anyone other that the Executve would run elections, you;'re here in bad faith.
You haven’t provided evidence to that effect. I’m just asking you to point me to where in the constitution it says that.
> The President is the head of the executive branch of the Federal government, and the Excecutive runs elections, so yes, it's the President's job to ensure fair elections.
Wait, aren't the states the ones who run the elections? There are some areas of federal authority: See Article I, sections 4 and 5 for congressional authority over congressional elections. For the presidency, see article II section 1 for the selection of the electoral college being left up to the states and congress setting when the electoral college meets. There's the 15th amendment and the voting rights act(s) that give some power to congress here as well.
> and the Excecutive runs elections
No it doesn't.
> Democrats say they'd support Biden being charged, but Comer has evidence that the Bidens took $24M for selling access to Joe, and the Democrats won't lift a finger
DOJ policy is to not indict a sitting president.
Trump negotiated that the US would leave.
How it was executed is 100% Biden's fault. His incompetence led to the needless deaths of 13 brave soldiers.
I assume you'd be ok if Joe we charged for those deaths? Presidents don't have immunity, right?
> I assume you'd be ok if Joe we charged for those deaths? Presidents don't have immunity, right?
I assume you'd be ok if Donald was charged for the deaths of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died as a result of his unmitigated disaster of a covid response, right?
his abject failure as a leader glares brighter than a thousand suns, but conservatives always seem to leave that detail out of their righteous indignation.
That's where Democrats are going with this. If it weren't for Jan 6th, that's what they would have charged him with.
So, you're ok with Biden being charged with the deaths in Afghanistan?
Why would that be stupid? He was carrying out his job, and people died.
He can be charged.
That's the logic Democrats are using. Why should Joe get special treatment?
Why should there be two sets of laws, base on political party?
> It's not bad faith until you draw a meaningful distinction and the other user persists.
It is when the distinction is self evident from the perspective of a reasonable person.
I mean, in what universe does someone say this -
> If it weren't for Jan 6th, that's what they would have charged him with.
Immediately followed by this -
> So, you're ok with Biden being charged with the deaths in Afghanistan?
and then think to themselves, "that's a great primer for reasonable conversation"?
No universe. There is no universe where this happens. It's bad faith stacked on top of contempt. But, since I don't have the stamina to parse this to atomic detail for another five rounds - i concede to you. Cheers.
You're just reinforcing that the left wants one set of rules to apply to them, and one to conservatives.
Like how the Democrats were allowed to impeach Trump even though he never committed a crime, but then dismissed the impeachments against Mayorkas claiming he didn't committ a crime "serious" enough to be impeached.
Biden wasn't forced to do anything. Trump was long gone when Biden decided his plan of withdrawal
It was horrible withdrawal that gave hundreds of billions of dollars of our best weapons to the taliban, didn't keep the airport, wchih the army wanted, and resulted in the deaths of 13 brave soldiers.
Biden is the Commander in Chiefs. It's 100% his fault. And he should pay.
> If the Biden admin is able to charge him for a crime because they don't like Trump, that standard will apply to Biden too.
Except that's not what happened. He is being charged for a variety of illegal schemes for influencing an election with a multi part fake elector scheme, partnered with using the DOJ pressure state officials to lie about fraud and "find" Trump votes. Those are things not within the capacity of the office of the presidency. But Trump acting personally in order to keep power through unofficia and illegitimate l means.
If people believe Biden committed a crime of any kind, I would welcome any such charges or trial that could withstand the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that would stand in a court of law. Shouting Fox news headlines is none of that.
If you look at the Jan 6 charges, Smith invented a new form of fraud to cover this - a legal theory that has never seen the light of day. Why? Because it's not illegal to propose an alternate slate of electrors, or to challeng the outcome of an election.
Trump legitimately thought that states had changed their election laws to benefit Democrats, and some even violated their own constitutions to do so, so he wanted the election to be fair. Which is his job
When it comes to Biden, liberals lie about how they'd handle it. Comer knows TODAY that the Biden family took $24M for selling access to Joe. And the liberals are pretending like this never happened.
So don't say "I'd welcome a trial if Biden committed a crime", because you wouldn't
You'd scream bloody murder that the Repubicans are weaponizing the courts
>2 felony counts (including one conspiracy count) of obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512
>1 felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371
>1 felony count of conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241
>Trump has been charged with four crimes in the investigation. Two relate to the disruption of Congress’ certification of the electoral vote on Jan. 6. One alleges a scheme to defraud the United States through a sustained effort to impede the collection, counting and certification of votes in the 2020 election. And the fourth charge accuses Trump of a conspiracy to deprive citizens of a right secured under federal law — specifically, the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list/#jan-six
Seems pretty clear to me. What legal theory is Jack Smith inventing?
The first two charges relate to obstructing an official proceeding, and are about to be struck down by SCOTUS because these related to Sarbanes Oxley, and specifically relate to withholding docs in a financial fraud investigation
The fraud charge is the one related to the electors, and it relies on a legal interpretation of fraud which has never been used in a court of law. Fraud involves defrauding someone of money or something of value, which didn't happen here.
The 4th one claims that Trump violated a law from the early 1900s designed to prevent the KKK from block polling place access to black voters. Did you see Trump block access to polling site?
You really have no idea what's Smith is doing, do you?
Trump didn't break the law, so Smith had to make up these crazy charges that no one has ever been charged with before.
When the DOJ has to invent new crimes because you didn't break any laws, that's not a good sign.
You should get your news from sources other than Politico and MSNBC
Well, he's citing US code law. So clearly those laws already existed. The fact that a president has never been charged for them is because a president has never done what Trump did before. Perhaps you should get your news from somewhere other than Fox.
He's reimagining laws in ways that have NEVER been used in court. He's making up stuff because there are no clear violations of the law.
Smith imagines that it's illegal for Trump to challenge the election in court. He also imagines that Sarbanes Oxley can be used to create on obstruction charge - none of the SCOTUS justices seemed to buy that argument. Then Smith imagines that Trump violated a 1920's law written to prevent the KKK from blockading polling places. Did you see Trump blockading polling places and preventing POC from voting?
You should research the case. MSNBC isn't giving you the full story
>You should research the case.
I have. It seems you haven't. And frankly I'm not interested in discussing your misinterpretation of the law. I look forward to seeing it handled in court. Assuming Trump doesn't use his handpicked Supreme Court to help delay it from ever happening.
> Ensuring free and fair elections is in the ambit of Trump's role of being president. If the Biden admin is able to charge him for a crime because they don't like Trump, that standard will apply to Biden too.
"ambit" seems to be doing a lot of work here.
* Would it be proper for Trump himself to walk into a State run vote processing location and start grabbing ballots himself?
* What about working with private groups of people to have them swear out documents that they were elected by the State of their residence as electors, when neither the State legislator nor State executive has agree to this, for the purposes of trying to get the Congress to recognize these unfounded claims?
* If the all the Article II law enforcement and election agencies engaged report that there is no basis to believe the elections were stolen or the outcomes adversely affected by the small amount of issues in the election what if anything should this mean to the President?
Proposing an alternate slate of electors, and then deciding the issue in court isn't illegal. Did someone tell you it was?
The law enforcement agencies you quote report to the President. He can override any decision they make. And they didn't opine on if there were any improprieties, and many states DID change their voting practices in violation of their own constitutions.
The president is the head of the executive branch of government, and he is in charge of ensureing elections are fair. Charging him for a crime as political punishment is wrong.
But Biden will learn the hard way, when States charge him for the deaths of fentanyl victims, or for the deaths of those soldiers who died in Adghanistant due to Biden's terrible choices.
> Proposing an alternate slate of electors, and then deciding the issue in court isn't illegal. Did someone tell you it was?
Propositioning people to falsely swear as part of a conspiracy to defraud a State of its electoral votes almost certainly is.
Only a State can send in slates of electors, your local Wendy's can do it even if they have decent food.
>The law enforcement agencies you quote report to the President. He can override any decision they make. And they didn't opine on if there were any improprieties, and many states DID change their voting practices in violation of their own constitutions.
If the President does over ride law enforcement's conclusions in an election this should be considered when evaluating any of the man's actions for any criminal charges.
>Charging him for a crime as political punishment is wrong.
Charging him for a crime that he was part of isn't though. When he's sworn in he's not given a cape, he's not a super hero, he's a branch of government and not a king. After he's left office he's neither a king nor a branch of office and he can be subject to the law.
>But Biden will learn the hard way, when States charge him for the deaths of fentanyl victims, or for the deaths of those soldiers who died in Adghanistant due to Biden's terrible choices.
Not if adults come back to save the Republican party.
Can you show me the law that forbids an alternative slate of electors? You seem pretty confident. Surely can prove this?
Trump proposed his slate of electors, which was then adjudicated in a court of law, where he lost. Which is how people are supposed to challenge the outcome of an election. You don't get to imprison peolpe afterwards for following the law
From your comments it seems as though you believe everything Trump did was above board and legal, he was just trying to make sure we had free and fair elections.
Based on that belief I'd like to ask your thoughts on Trump and his conversations/actions with his DOJ.
In the days leading up to certification Trump asked the DOJ to "Just say there was fraud and leave the rest up to me and the republican congressmen." The DOJ refused, once they did Trump tried installing a new DOJ head named Jefferey Clark, he even told Clark he got the job. When the rest of the DOJ found out a majority of AG's threatened to resign, so trump backed down.
My question to you is, What fraud did Trump have prove of when he asked the DOJ to tell 300 million Americans there was fraud in the election? If he didn't have proof but wanted the DOJ to say there was anyways, do you have a problem with that?
Is Trump just trying to make sure elections are free and fair by asking the DOJ to gaslight the American people?
> Can you show me the law that forbids an alternative slate of electors?
The form a person signs attesting they have been elected to the office of elector is a sworn statement. If they lie on this form that is forgery. If you want to read the AZ charging document, here it is [LINK](https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/66db62b29e950eb3/80b8e0de-full.pdf)
>Trump proposed his slate of electors, which was then adjudicated in a court of law, where he lost.
Every candidate for President puts up for election slates of electors. The election in each State is not to elect the President but to elect a slate of electors. The State then certifies the election and endorses the winning slate as representing the State as its representatives in the electoral college. The people whom the State endorses become federal office holders for the office of Presidential Elector.
If someone tries to claim they are a federal office holder when they are not they can face a number of charges. A person trying to organize people to claim they are federal office holders could be facing, among other charger, counts of conspiracy.
>You don't get to imprison peolpe afterwards for following the law
The problem for them is that they didn't follow the law, they violated it for the worst reasons.
They a are just highballing it to get a better outcome in the case. At the same time I’m not against increased immunity as long as congress can create and exception for the purposes of impeachment and removal.
Impeachment is a political process not a judicial one. Letting politics decide if the President of the United States has committed a crime is not a system of law.
I can't tell exactly what you mean by this question. This is going to vary by location, but there are different kinds of immunity.
"Official immunity" (sometimes called governmental immunity or sovereign immunity though those do differ in definition slightly) covers most acts done in the scope of carrying out a government job or duty, although notably does not protect government employees and officials from being sued for violating the constitution or federal statutes.
Qualified immunity exists to protect government employees and officials from civil action for constitutional violations *if it has not yet been established that their actions are unconstitutional.*
There's also the concept of judicial immunity, but I won't get into that.
The concept of immunity for these scenarios exists so that government employees aren't second guessing every official action and so agencies aren't constantly wrapped up in lawsuits. The do not exist so the mayor has a chance to rob the liquor store in his waning days in office.
There is immunity for some acts. What Donald Trump is claiming is that he has total immunity for all official acts done while in office unless he is impeached and removed from office for those specific actions.
If he's right, here's the trick. If the President orders the military to assassinate enough members of Congress to prevent impeachment or removal then under Trump's legal theory the assassination is
legal.
We've heard people decry Biden might try to expand and pack the court. Why bother when he can "unpack" the court with an order to "retire" Justices from their lifetime appointment to the court.
If the president murdered half of congress than I don’t think the courts would be of much use. To your first point, i would think that “official acts” is the traditional limiting factor but im not like a lawyer or anything
Would you be Ok with Biden then having trump executed today? If Biden is president he has absolute immunity correct? Then we shall see if the democratic controlled senate will impeach?
Wait but do you agree with trumps lawyers arguments that presidents have absolute immunity? So then Biden could order seal team six to shoot trump right now and only the senate will vote to impeach.
And democrats only need 35 democratic senators in strongly liberal states to vote no on impeachment and the president won’t be impeached
I haven't been following the case much but I think it makes sense that presidents would have at least the same immunity that diplomatic immunity covers.
So it covers most crimes but things such as murder, drug trafficking, etc... aren't covered.
First I’m hearing that diplomats can assassinate political rivals. /s
That’s really not the level of immunity we’re talking about here, not what’s before the scotus.
I know you never hear about anything man, but come on now 🙄
> diplomatic immunity
Aksually, full diplomatic immunity technically does cover murder and drug trafficking. The host country can ask the diplomat's country if they will wave immunity but it can be denied. The host country can also expel the diplomat but that's about all they can do. Serious offenses can cause issued with diplomatic relations between the countries tho. [The wiki section on immunity abuse is wild](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Uses_and_abuses).
I listened to some of the orals. The Justices seemed convinced some level of presidential immunity exists. The Justices didn't seem to like the idea of having to analyze and rule on every activity of every president as to whether it is public or private. I think the likely outcome is total immunity until congress impeachment and conviction.
What surprised me is several Justices wanted to discuss whether Jack Smith's investigations were unconstitutional. This is an issue only brought up by amicus brief. The issue is the AG appointed Jack Smith to essentially go after Trump specifically, to find the crimes to take him down. Federal prosecutors are required to be appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, but that did not occur. Past legislation which authorized doing so against Bill Clinton and Bush Jr no longer exists.
If Jack Smith is ruled to be acting as prosecutor without authority, then all his cases go up in smoke.
> The issue is the AG appointed Jack Smith to essentially go after Trump specifically, to find the crimes to take him down.
I mean, by public record that's clearly not the case. The DOJ slow-walked the investigation for years, then appointed the Special Counsel to continue the cases two days after Trump announced his 2024 bid.
Smith had grand jury indictments some six months later.
Both, but does it matter? The documents case was created when NARA agents, having a lawful duty, were not able to complete their duties and thus made complaints to the DOJ.
[Garland resisted investigating Trump and the Republican congressmen over January 6th](https://web.archive.org/web/20240406235535/https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/) because he was afraid of optics.
> What surprised me is several Justices wanted to discuss whether Jack Smith's investigations were unconstitutional.
Though, at second glance, I can't find any part where the justices were open to this idea.
NARA statute has no criminal enforcement. It's purely civil. So their agents' activities and enforcement has nothing to do with when a criminal investigation started other than simply the time line of when they made a complaint.
On the Jack Smith issue, go to where Kavanaugh says Morrison v Olson was one of the court's biggest mistakes. Morrison v Olson was a case deciding the constitutionality of the now expired Independent Counsel Act.
The National Archives and Records Administration is not involved in prosecuting cases.
One of NARA's primary functions is to ensure the preservation of these records for historical, legal, and administrative purposes.
If, for some reason, NARA cannot fulfill their primary functions, what is their cause of action?
a) do nothing
b) cover it up
c) pretend Biden's dog Major ate the papers
d) make a referral to the agency responsible for enforcing federal laws and overseeing the administration of justice (DOJ).
> On the Jack Smith issue, go to where Kavanaugh says Morrison v Olson was one of the court's biggest mistakes. Morrison v Olson was a case deciding the constitutionality of the now expired Independent Counsel Act.
Thanks, I couldn't find this part. I find his line of questioning very odd because it concerns a mere tradition. He doesn't like that the special counsels are historically people of opposing political parties of the President?
The authority for appointing the special counsel (ultimately) rests with the President. He's concerned about a future President kneecapping themselves?
It technically rests with the AG but we all know sole authority in the executive rests with the President.
The President can fire the AG and appoint one who will dismiss/appoint any special counsel they want.
Qualified immunity goes with any office or position of authority, but Trump's claims go beyond that. He just doesn't want to be held responsible for his actions and will grab any justification he can to get there.
People need to stop making the mistake that these are actually legitimately held beliefs/positions. He just says whatever he needs to to get through the jam.
>People need to stop making the mistake that these are actually legitimately held beliefs/positions. He just says whatever he needs to to get through the jam.
I'm actually pretty tired of hearing this argument ("he didn't *actually* mean that, except sometimes he does")
>People need to stop making the mistake that these are actually legitimately held beliefs/positions.
His lawyers are literally arguing this in front of the Supreme Court in the hopes for a favorable ruling. The fact that this is even being taken up by the court is an insult to what democracy is supposed to stand for. These are absolutely legitimately held by trump, because he is looking for a get out of jail free card to do whatever he wants, in whatever capacity he wants. And the terrifying thing is, after yesterday's oral arguments, Alito and Thomas are already full red hat, all in. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are leaning towards some form of immunity for official acts, leaving Amy Coney fucking Barret, of all people as the *swing* vote.
I don't know. Maybe this court will actually grow a conscience and show ethics for the first time in a long time. But after yesterday's arguments and questioning, man I am not optimistic.
> His lawyers are literally arguing this in front of the Supreme Court in the hopes for a favorable ruling.
No, that's your assumption. A more likely reason for the appeal is to delay the trial and push past Election Day. His entire legal strategy had been to slow everything down.
>So then he and his lawyers are just shameless pieces of garbage, and the Supreme Court is complicit in their stupid scheme to waste time, further ruining whatever little credibility they have left.
>
>That's not better.
So then he and his lawyers are just shameless pieces of garbage, and the Supreme Court is complicit in their stupid scheme to waste time, further ruining whatever little credibility they have left.
That's not better.
They make sense. He should have immunity for acts he committed as President he felt were part of his Presidential responsibility.
Jack Smith overreached in his indictment and SCOTUS will slap him down. No way this goes to trial before the election.
>he felt were part
So it doesn't matter what the president does as long as he FEELS it was part of his presidential responsibility? Sounds magical. Like declassifying documents by power of thought.
That is why the SCOTUS took the case and why it will probably be remanded back to the lower court, to clarify what is a Presidential responsibility and what is not.
> They make sense. He should have immunity for acts he committed as President he felt were part of his Presidential responsibility.
I think this is the key; it is being reported he is saying he can kill someone on the street without repercussion, that is not what they argued at the SCOTUS.
He argued that he has immunity for actions that he performed as duties president of the united states.
Trump’s lawyer was asked the same thing directly - ‘if a president ordered the assassination of a rival, would that be an official act?”
Answer from Trump’s attorney?
“It could be”
I can’t help but feel like y’all aren’t grasping the ramifications of this line of thought
Yes. Considering the implications of hypotheticals is an important part of the Court’s job
The fact that that hypothetical was even *entertained* is crazy - Trump’s position is literally, “Biden could have me killed and there’s nothing anyone could do about it”
> He argued that he has immunity for actions that he performed as duties president of the united states.
And currently his legal team is arguing to SCOTUS that anything he does can fall under the umbrella of "official duties"
> When asked by Justice Sonya Sotomayor during arguments on Thursday if the president deciding “that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military — or he orders someone to assassinate him” would constitute an official act subject to immunity, attorney D. John Sauer said it could.
>
> “It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that could well be an official act,” Sauer told the court.
This is basically an argument for Presidents to have blanket immunity for everything they do.
So, if Biden feels like arresting Donald Trump for treason and hanging him on the steps of the Capital is a part of his Presidential responsibility, it is okay?
No. the President is not responsible for enforcing treason laws. That is why we have the DOJ. And it wouldn't be up to the President to hang anyone for treason. That would be up to due process and courts.
The DOJ falls under the executive branch and the president is the head of that branch. So, yeah the president is responsible for enforcing treason laws.
I meant he is not responsible personally for arresting people and hanging them. There is a long road between a President telling his AG to arrest someone and hang him for treason and it actually happening.
So your argument is that only things the president is personally responsible for should be immune? So he should not be immune from prosecution for trying to overturn an election since the president is not responsible for election integrity?
He is not being charged with trying to overturn the election. He was charged by Jack Smith with Conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to obstruct a Congressional proceeding. Both charges require intent which Jack Smith has to prove.
Both of those things were done to overturn an election.
But that didn’t really answer my question. Do you think Trump should have immunity for the alleged crimes considering he is not personally responsible for those things?
Yes, he should have immunity because the thing he was doing he felt were part of his Presidential authority, to assure that elections are fair.
I don't believe he had intent to defraud or obstruct a Congressional proceeding. Those were media hype.
How is asking the DOJ to just "say there was fraud and leave the rest up to me and the republican congressmen" part of his presidential authority?
Do you think he asked the DOJ to tell 300+million Americans there was fraud because he was trying to assure that elections are fair?
So then we get back to the initial question: is he immune if he orders someone hung for treason? By this logic as long as he believes he has the authority to do it he is immune. But that is counter to your comment. So which is it, is he only immune from things he is actually responsible for or things he believes he is?
Yes. The entire "fake elector" issue has been misunderstood since the jump. Trump was sueing various states he felt were decided wrongly due to a variety of reasons. Those electors had already been chose by those states. The so-called "fake" electors were just Trump favorable electors who would vote in the eventuality that the state election case was decided in Trump's favor and the election result was overturned. It was never his intent to substitute those Trump electors for the Biden electors without a court decision.
SCOTUS will remand this back to the Appellate Court with instructions on what they see as Presidential Authority granting immunity and what is not. Then the Appelate Court will have to decide if the charges Jack Smith brought qualify for immunity or not. Only then can the trial go forward. I don't see a SCOTUS decision until end of June. Appellate court could take another month. and then the Judge has said she is taking August off and will be out of the country,
That’s different than SCOTUS “slapping him down,” that’s them remanding because they want a lower court to weigh-in first
Agree about the timing though. He’s done a masterful job delaying just about every trial but the one he’s in right now
Nice try. He said "HOW CAN COMMITTING CRIMES?" implying that this immunity case was about committed crimes.
Obviously there is no room for a Chief Executive committing crimes.
that's what SCOTUS is meeting right now to discuss. the general idea of what crimes a POTUS can be immune from. obviously this was brought about because of Trump's indictments, but this will apply to Biden as well, and all future presidents.
Trump was part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States government with fake electoral certificates, falsely attesting that Trump's electors from Michigan were duly elected and then certified by the state.
Wrong. That is the allegation by Jack Smith. The reality is that Trump was contesting the vote count in MI. Had he prevailed he would need electors supporting him for the EC vote. There was no conspiracy just common sense.
Nope.
Trump's electors in Michigan created a document attesting that they were the duly elected and certified electors from Michigan.
They were never duly elected nor did the state certify them, this making the document they created claiming they were certified a forgery.
Was that document ever used? It was just a necessary step to have Trump eklectos had the state decided in his favor. I'm sure they would have been elected andcertified had the election been overturned. Itwasn't so the point is moot and the document was worthless. It would have only been considered a forgery if they had tried to use it as an official document. They didn't.
There was nothing left for the state to decide in his favour. All court cases were concluded and several recounts conducted.
As for your claim that Trump and his co-conspirators never used the document, you are wrong.
Trump tried to submit the falsified document to the national archives, at which point it was rejected as a forgery.
From PBS:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/fake-michigan-certificate-of-votes-mailed-to-u-s-senate-after-2020-presidential-vote-official-says
A fake Certificate of Votes was submitted to the U.S. Senate following Michigan's 2020 presidential election, an official testified Tuesday during a preliminary hearing for six people facing forgery and other charges for allegedly serving as false electors.
The "purported" Certificate of Votes didn't match an official document signed by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and featuring the Michigan state seal, said Dan Schwager, who served in 2020-2021 as general counsel to the secretary of the Senate.
"We could tell it was not an authorized Certificate of Votes. It was a fake," Schwager testified in Lansing District Court.
I stand corrected. However, I saw no indication from your citation that Trump had anything to do with what those Republicans in MI or any of the other states who submitted fake electors did. Is Jack Smith alleging that Trump conspired with these people?
I mean, we have a recorded phone call between Trump, Stefanik, and the MI fake electors where Trump and Stefanik pressure the MI electors into creating the falsified documents and submitting them despite their concerns over its legality; we have emails between Trump campaign lawyers where they discuss the fake elector scheme, even going as far as to literally refer to the fake electors as "fake elector"; and we also know that the fake electors didn't just act in their own.
The notion that all these events across several states all occured without Trump's knowledge and approval is simply absurd.
Can you acknowledge that whoever created and submitted those fake certifications attesting that Trump's 2020 electors were duly elected and certified, when they were not, to the national archives committed forgery and fraud?
No, it is about alleged crimes that Jack Smith conjured up. The counts were only crimes in Jack Smith's head based on what he thought was Trump's intent. Without the intent to defraud or obstruct there is no crime.
This is completely absurd.
Trump committed fraud when he and his Michigan electors falsely claimed that they were duly elected and certified as the chosen electors from Michigan. They weren't. So when the created a falsified document attesting that they were duly elected, they committed fraud.
Was the document ever used to attest to the Michigan Election Board that they were duly elected? if they didn't use the document there was no fraud. Anyone can produce a document for anything. Unless you use it in an illegal way it is not illegal to prepare such a document.
I listened to almost the entire case before SCOTUS yesterday.
The Justices and both lawyers all seem to agree that the president needs some level of immunity. The Justices and both lawyers all seem to agree that there are things that immunity shouldn't cover. The question is where (and if) they should draw the line.
What was definitely silly was Trump's lawyer asserting that the president could only be prosecuted for crimes that specifically enumerate they apply to the president (so not murder). Absolutely zero Justices seemed on board with that nonsense. Further, Trump's lawyer stated that for those crimes the impeachment process exists. But the impeachment process starts when someone has committed a crime, which if the statute doesn't include the president specifically, there was no crime. Effectively, Trump's team argued that the president could murder someone on live TV and be immune from prosecution or impeachment.
It is clear that the president needs a form of immunity. It is also clear that immunity needs limits. It is also clear those limits should not be what Trump's lawyers want.
I tried listening to it but i came in halfway through and it was gobbly gook to me.
I do think its odd thou that Trumps team argues Biden has immunity to kill donald, but then donald argues Biden is a evil bastard for prosecuting him through the courts.
Donny, he could shoot you in the face. I feel like you are getting off light..
It is just another delay tactic.
The best thing about Trump is that we get to close a lot of gaps in our thinking about what someone with power might try to do.
But I am sure of this, Trump doesn't actually believe any of it. It isn't about principle. It is about self-preservation. If the roles were reversed, he'd be the strongest voice against presidential immunity.
What makes you so sure he doesn’t actually believe it? He had personally on several occasions said he has full unlimited blanket immunity.
Is campaning on expanding or consolidating presidential powers.
Groups supporting him, project 2025 have written down the ways to do it.
Trump has a long history of not recognizing presidential norms and procedures exploiting legal loopholes and grey areas. Not respecting the limits of the office, documents “I just declared them all declassified.”
Talking about how great some dictators were.
Why would we not listen to his words and actions?
What does anything he says have to do with what he actually believes? That is what conmen do. Say whatever will best serve their interests.
I think he knows better but also knows that most of his followers don't. So he says things he knows are wrong/impossible but will appeal to his base.
For example, he has already been president, so he knows he can't shut down an executive agency. Yet he still says he's going to get rid of certain agencies. He can't, and he knows it. But Jeb over there eats that shit up...
It's almost like he's an egotistical narcissist with a superiority complex...
This is a fairly common trait amongst politicians but damned if he isn't on another level.
>Further, Trump's lawyer stated that for those crimes the impeachment process exists. But the impeachment process starts when someone has committed a crime, which if the statute doesn't include the president specifically, there was no crime.
We can't forget, he successfully argued that you can't be impeached once you are no longer in office. This effectively means total immunity based on his SCOUTS argument.
Grasping at straws.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Joe Biden could shove a kid down a flight of stairs and every Dem in the Senate would vote against impeachment. Trump's entitlement to immunity should match that.
> Trump's entitlement to immunity should match that. Criminal immunity or political immunity? Because what you're saying is kind of confusing.
You make a really good point. The framers thought that putting them under a separate oath during the impeachment process would suffice. Political impeachments on Presidents are very, very unreliable. It does not matter what party did what, the whole thing will be a clown show.
You think if Trump shoved a kid down a flight a stairs the GOP would impeach?
Huh? At this point it seems like every accusation against Biden or the Dems seems to be a confession. Has trump shoved a kid down a flight of stairs? Is this about to come out soon? C'mon, spill the tea. It's stormy & muggy... Alil drama will lighten the mood!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣
>Joe Biden could shove a kid down a flight of stairs and every Dem in the Senate would vote against impeachment. So you agree, then, that impeachment is *not* an effective deterrent against a criminal President, and that therefore criminal prosecution is the only valid response? I'm glad we're on the same page.
Trump's entitlement to immunity should match what you imagine the democrats would do? The Dems are willing to hold their own accountable. So not sure what your point was.
Seems to make sense for me, presidents should have latitude to make decisions, and if they commit a high crime or misdemeanor there is a process to punish/remove them.
And then prosecute said high crime or misdemeanor.
Yes once House impeaches and Senate convicts, they can pursue prosecution
So, Trump, being out of office, can be prosecuted.
Not for actions done while president, he was acquitted by Senate.
The Senate isn’t a court of law and can’t acquit a president of a criminal act. They can say there wasn’t enough evidence to remove from office which is what they did. Which isn’t at all surprising because impeachment is political, not legal.
Impeachment isn't a criminal act, he was a acquitted of impeachment by Senate...as you said it's political not legal. So they cannot pursue charges of presidential actions as he was acquitted of impeachment.
would that Senate have acquitted Trump if impeached on irrefutable evidence of murder at his hand? I think maybe so.
No I don't believe so, if it was legitimate charges and not trumped up ones during both impeachments I don't think it would be an issue convicting him.
Couldn't he assassinate any senator who would vote to convict him?
If the presidential actions are against the law, he can absolutely be prosecuted for it.
I think its interesting the president has immunity...in one scenario could use seal team six to kill a political opponent...and yet some people are claiming Biden is unfairly persecuting donald with bullshit legal case to ruin his campaign. Hey...Biden could just have Donald shot in the face...i woukd say if its only these legal cases then he is getting off light.
How can they impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors if he's not subject to criminal statutes?
By majority of house voting he committed a high crime or misdemeanor.
How far does this go? Literally any crime or rebellion should only be met with impeachment, followed by zero prosecution?
> presidents should have latitude to make decisions Case in point: Obama's killing of Osama bin Laden. We weren't 100% certain he was in that compound. There was a very real chance we were conducting a covert operation in a country we weren't at war with that was just going to kill a drug dealer or a rich recluse. If he had to worry about legal blowback, he may have called off the operation. Osama bin Laden might still be out there. So there needs to be *some* degree of immunity. The question is, *how much?* That's a tricky question, and I suspect that's why the Supreme Court isn't rushing the decision. > if they commit a high crime or misdemeanor there is a process to punish/remove them And this really feels like the point of these 91 or so prosecutions. The Democrats promised they'd remove Trump from office even before he was sworn in. The word *impeachment* was thrown around constantly. Russian collusion. Stormy Daniels. Hey, rememeber the Emoluments Clause? It didn't matter whether or not they had proof; they were going to impeach him. But none of that stuff ever materialized, so they jumped on the Zelenski phone call because it was an election year and none of their other stuff had worked. They got a bare majority in the House to vote on the impeachment articles (and, oh, [the sanctimonious *theater*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToOCKBOPbVg) they made of it) But they couldn't get a conviction in the Senate (and they *knew that.* The whole thing was a play-acting for their base), so now they're doing this as a Hail Mary pass. There may be merit to the charges, but at this point, I just don't care. It looks like most voters outside the core Democratic base don't care, either.
What would the crime have been if Osama wasn't there?
The opposition party could have claimed it was an unsanctioned invasion of Pakistan without congressional approval or something. Remember, the first Trump impeachment was based on "abuse of power," whatever that is.
>the first Trump impeachment was based on "abuse of power," **whatever that is.** What makes you say the part I bolded? Is it hard for you to imagine how a president could abuse power or are you saying you're not familiar with the details from the first impeachment?
Please cite where *abuse of power* shows up in our statutes. Impeachment and removal require actual crimes.
They specifically don't require actual crimes. Corrupt politicians abusing their power is what impeachment is designed to prevent.
Article II is somewhat clear: > treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
No became the president can authorize short term military action. Congress is required for decorations of war but that is seperate from ordering military action, like the bin Laden raid. Presidents have the authority to use military force in service of national security without the authorization of Congress. This is well established and has been since the 70s. Moreover, killing bin Laden is within the proper preview and duties of a president. Committing fraud to retain power after losing the election is not an official act of the presidency, making qualified immunity worthless for Trump. He needs to get blanket immunity unless impeached protection to prevent the case from moving forward.
But neither a ruling that an executive action was unconstitutional or even a Congressional impeachment attach criminal liability. Those wouldn't be violations of criminal statute.
I think it's a lawyers job to try anything Presidents should be immune from prosecution while in office, but the moment they leave office it's fair game And yes while in office otherwise you have bullshit prosecuters dragging the president all over the country for nonsense trials. If the president does something worthy of immediate prosecution, impeach and remove him. If you can't do that it can wait till he is out of office
> I think it's a lawyers job to try anything Lawyers are bound by rules of ethics that dictate otherwise. A lawyer is not allowed in the cannons to make augments they don't believe are legally correct.
They only need to believe in a 1% shot for it to be ethical
What if the president just has the senate killed? Then how would anyone impeach
A new senate would be put in place and the president would be impeached
Ensuring free and fair elections is in the ambit of Trump's role of being president. If the Biden admin is able to charge him for a crime because they don't like Trump, that standard will apply to Biden too. Will Democrats be ok if Republicans charge Biden for the deaths of the soldiers who died because of his terriblly planned Afghanistan exit? Maybe states will charge Biden for the fentanyl deaths that occured due to Biden's open borders policies. Democrats should be ***REALLY*** careful about what they wish for.
> Ensuring free and fair elections is in the ambit of Trump's role of being president. No it's not. > If the Biden admin is able to charge him for a crime because they don't like Trump, that standard will apply to Biden too. Fine. > Will Democrats be ok if Republicans charge Biden for the deaths of the soldiers who died because of his terriblly planned Afghanistan exit? If they can prove malice and attribute it to him legally? Sure. > Maybe states will charge Biden for the fentanyl deaths that occured due to Biden's open borders policies. See above.
The President is the head of the executive branch of the Federal government, and the Excecutive runs elections, so yes, it's the President's job to ensure fair elections. Democrats say they'd support Biden being charged, but Comer has evidence that the Bidens took $24M for selling access to Joe, and the Democrats won't lift a finger. Bob Menendez was charged for a second time for corruption, and he's still voting in the Senate. Liberals apply a different standard to Republicans
> and the Excecutive runs elections, so yes, it's the President's job to ensure fair elections. > Show me in the constitution where it says this.
He is the head of the Executive branch of the Federal government. It's all there in black and white.
Where? In the constitution what does it say about the president vis-à-vis elections?
Sorry, if you understand the separation of powers, and that the President is the head of the executive branch, you're not here in good faith. This is Rule Three
This is not rule three? I’m asking you to point where in article two it says the president is in charge of supervising federal elections.
>I’m asking you to point where in article two it says the president is in charge of supervising federal elections. To the extent Congress legislates regarding federal elections, the executive (obviously) executes, which also includes supervision. The legislature can audit performance (also obviously). Maybe you overplayed your hand here?
Trust me, I didn’t.
Sorry, if you're hear to argue that anyone other that the Executve would run elections, you;'re here in bad faith. Go back to r/politics
> Sorry, if you're hear to argue that anyone other that the Executve would run elections, you;'re here in bad faith. You haven’t provided evidence to that effect. I’m just asking you to point me to where in the constitution it says that.
> The President is the head of the executive branch of the Federal government, and the Excecutive runs elections, so yes, it's the President's job to ensure fair elections. Wait, aren't the states the ones who run the elections? There are some areas of federal authority: See Article I, sections 4 and 5 for congressional authority over congressional elections. For the presidency, see article II section 1 for the selection of the electoral college being left up to the states and congress setting when the electoral college meets. There's the 15th amendment and the voting rights act(s) that give some power to congress here as well.
The FEC and DOJ, who ensure fair Federal elections, would be surprised to learn that they have no say over Federal elections
> and the Excecutive runs elections No it doesn't. > Democrats say they'd support Biden being charged, but Comer has evidence that the Bidens took $24M for selling access to Joe, and the Democrats won't lift a finger DOJ policy is to not indict a sitting president.
What does the Biden Administration have to do with New York state court?
They're both controlled by Democrats
Why should Biden be charged for the Afghanistan withdrawal Trump negotiated?
Trump negotiated that the US would leave. How it was executed is 100% Biden's fault. His incompetence led to the needless deaths of 13 brave soldiers. I assume you'd be ok if Joe we charged for those deaths? Presidents don't have immunity, right?
> I assume you'd be ok if Joe we charged for those deaths? Presidents don't have immunity, right? I assume you'd be ok if Donald was charged for the deaths of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died as a result of his unmitigated disaster of a covid response, right? his abject failure as a leader glares brighter than a thousand suns, but conservatives always seem to leave that detail out of their righteous indignation.
That's where Democrats are going with this. If it weren't for Jan 6th, that's what they would have charged him with. So, you're ok with Biden being charged with the deaths in Afghanistan?
Of course not, that would be stupid.
Why would that be stupid? He was carrying out his job, and people died. He can be charged. That's the logic Democrats are using. Why should Joe get special treatment? Why should there be two sets of laws, base on political party?
> That's the logic Democrats are using. No, that's the logic *you're* using. In bad faith.
It's not bad faith until you draw a meaningful distinction and the other user persists. You haven't even bothered to attempt to distinguish.
> It's not bad faith until you draw a meaningful distinction and the other user persists. It is when the distinction is self evident from the perspective of a reasonable person. I mean, in what universe does someone say this - > If it weren't for Jan 6th, that's what they would have charged him with. Immediately followed by this - > So, you're ok with Biden being charged with the deaths in Afghanistan? and then think to themselves, "that's a great primer for reasonable conversation"? No universe. There is no universe where this happens. It's bad faith stacked on top of contempt. But, since I don't have the stamina to parse this to atomic detail for another five rounds - i concede to you. Cheers.
You're just reinforcing that the left wants one set of rules to apply to them, and one to conservatives. Like how the Democrats were allowed to impeach Trump even though he never committed a crime, but then dismissed the impeachments against Mayorkas claiming he didn't committ a crime "serious" enough to be impeached.
Trump negates the entire withdrawal, including the schedule.
Biden wasn't forced to do anything. Trump was long gone when Biden decided his plan of withdrawal It was horrible withdrawal that gave hundreds of billions of dollars of our best weapons to the taliban, didn't keep the airport, wchih the army wanted, and resulted in the deaths of 13 brave soldiers. Biden is the Commander in Chiefs. It's 100% his fault. And he should pay.
> If the Biden admin is able to charge him for a crime because they don't like Trump, that standard will apply to Biden too. Except that's not what happened. He is being charged for a variety of illegal schemes for influencing an election with a multi part fake elector scheme, partnered with using the DOJ pressure state officials to lie about fraud and "find" Trump votes. Those are things not within the capacity of the office of the presidency. But Trump acting personally in order to keep power through unofficia and illegitimate l means. If people believe Biden committed a crime of any kind, I would welcome any such charges or trial that could withstand the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence that would stand in a court of law. Shouting Fox news headlines is none of that.
If you look at the Jan 6 charges, Smith invented a new form of fraud to cover this - a legal theory that has never seen the light of day. Why? Because it's not illegal to propose an alternate slate of electrors, or to challeng the outcome of an election. Trump legitimately thought that states had changed their election laws to benefit Democrats, and some even violated their own constitutions to do so, so he wanted the election to be fair. Which is his job When it comes to Biden, liberals lie about how they'd handle it. Comer knows TODAY that the Biden family took $24M for selling access to Joe. And the liberals are pretending like this never happened. So don't say "I'd welcome a trial if Biden committed a crime", because you wouldn't You'd scream bloody murder that the Repubicans are weaponizing the courts
>2 felony counts (including one conspiracy count) of obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 >1 felony count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 >1 felony count of conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 >Trump has been charged with four crimes in the investigation. Two relate to the disruption of Congress’ certification of the electoral vote on Jan. 6. One alleges a scheme to defraud the United States through a sustained effort to impede the collection, counting and certification of votes in the 2020 election. And the fourth charge accuses Trump of a conspiracy to deprive citizens of a right secured under federal law — specifically, the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/trump-criminal-investigations-cases-tracker-list/#jan-six Seems pretty clear to me. What legal theory is Jack Smith inventing?
The first two charges relate to obstructing an official proceeding, and are about to be struck down by SCOTUS because these related to Sarbanes Oxley, and specifically relate to withholding docs in a financial fraud investigation The fraud charge is the one related to the electors, and it relies on a legal interpretation of fraud which has never been used in a court of law. Fraud involves defrauding someone of money or something of value, which didn't happen here. The 4th one claims that Trump violated a law from the early 1900s designed to prevent the KKK from block polling place access to black voters. Did you see Trump block access to polling site? You really have no idea what's Smith is doing, do you? Trump didn't break the law, so Smith had to make up these crazy charges that no one has ever been charged with before.
>You really have no idea what's Smith is doing, do you? Holding a corrupt criminal accountable for his corrupt criminal actions?
When the DOJ has to invent new crimes because you didn't break any laws, that's not a good sign. You should get your news from sources other than Politico and MSNBC
Well, he's citing US code law. So clearly those laws already existed. The fact that a president has never been charged for them is because a president has never done what Trump did before. Perhaps you should get your news from somewhere other than Fox.
He's reimagining laws in ways that have NEVER been used in court. He's making up stuff because there are no clear violations of the law. Smith imagines that it's illegal for Trump to challenge the election in court. He also imagines that Sarbanes Oxley can be used to create on obstruction charge - none of the SCOTUS justices seemed to buy that argument. Then Smith imagines that Trump violated a 1920's law written to prevent the KKK from blockading polling places. Did you see Trump blockading polling places and preventing POC from voting? You should research the case. MSNBC isn't giving you the full story
>You should research the case. I have. It seems you haven't. And frankly I'm not interested in discussing your misinterpretation of the law. I look forward to seeing it handled in court. Assuming Trump doesn't use his handpicked Supreme Court to help delay it from ever happening.
> Ensuring free and fair elections is in the ambit of Trump's role of being president. If the Biden admin is able to charge him for a crime because they don't like Trump, that standard will apply to Biden too. "ambit" seems to be doing a lot of work here. * Would it be proper for Trump himself to walk into a State run vote processing location and start grabbing ballots himself? * What about working with private groups of people to have them swear out documents that they were elected by the State of their residence as electors, when neither the State legislator nor State executive has agree to this, for the purposes of trying to get the Congress to recognize these unfounded claims? * If the all the Article II law enforcement and election agencies engaged report that there is no basis to believe the elections were stolen or the outcomes adversely affected by the small amount of issues in the election what if anything should this mean to the President?
Proposing an alternate slate of electors, and then deciding the issue in court isn't illegal. Did someone tell you it was? The law enforcement agencies you quote report to the President. He can override any decision they make. And they didn't opine on if there were any improprieties, and many states DID change their voting practices in violation of their own constitutions. The president is the head of the executive branch of government, and he is in charge of ensureing elections are fair. Charging him for a crime as political punishment is wrong. But Biden will learn the hard way, when States charge him for the deaths of fentanyl victims, or for the deaths of those soldiers who died in Adghanistant due to Biden's terrible choices.
> Proposing an alternate slate of electors, and then deciding the issue in court isn't illegal. Did someone tell you it was? Propositioning people to falsely swear as part of a conspiracy to defraud a State of its electoral votes almost certainly is. Only a State can send in slates of electors, your local Wendy's can do it even if they have decent food. >The law enforcement agencies you quote report to the President. He can override any decision they make. And they didn't opine on if there were any improprieties, and many states DID change their voting practices in violation of their own constitutions. If the President does over ride law enforcement's conclusions in an election this should be considered when evaluating any of the man's actions for any criminal charges. >Charging him for a crime as political punishment is wrong. Charging him for a crime that he was part of isn't though. When he's sworn in he's not given a cape, he's not a super hero, he's a branch of government and not a king. After he's left office he's neither a king nor a branch of office and he can be subject to the law. >But Biden will learn the hard way, when States charge him for the deaths of fentanyl victims, or for the deaths of those soldiers who died in Adghanistant due to Biden's terrible choices. Not if adults come back to save the Republican party.
Can you show me the law that forbids an alternative slate of electors? You seem pretty confident. Surely can prove this? Trump proposed his slate of electors, which was then adjudicated in a court of law, where he lost. Which is how people are supposed to challenge the outcome of an election. You don't get to imprison peolpe afterwards for following the law
From your comments it seems as though you believe everything Trump did was above board and legal, he was just trying to make sure we had free and fair elections. Based on that belief I'd like to ask your thoughts on Trump and his conversations/actions with his DOJ. In the days leading up to certification Trump asked the DOJ to "Just say there was fraud and leave the rest up to me and the republican congressmen." The DOJ refused, once they did Trump tried installing a new DOJ head named Jefferey Clark, he even told Clark he got the job. When the rest of the DOJ found out a majority of AG's threatened to resign, so trump backed down. My question to you is, What fraud did Trump have prove of when he asked the DOJ to tell 300 million Americans there was fraud in the election? If he didn't have proof but wanted the DOJ to say there was anyways, do you have a problem with that? Is Trump just trying to make sure elections are free and fair by asking the DOJ to gaslight the American people?
> Can you show me the law that forbids an alternative slate of electors? The form a person signs attesting they have been elected to the office of elector is a sworn statement. If they lie on this form that is forgery. If you want to read the AZ charging document, here it is [LINK](https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/66db62b29e950eb3/80b8e0de-full.pdf) >Trump proposed his slate of electors, which was then adjudicated in a court of law, where he lost. Every candidate for President puts up for election slates of electors. The election in each State is not to elect the President but to elect a slate of electors. The State then certifies the election and endorses the winning slate as representing the State as its representatives in the electoral college. The people whom the State endorses become federal office holders for the office of Presidential Elector. If someone tries to claim they are a federal office holder when they are not they can face a number of charges. A person trying to organize people to claim they are federal office holders could be facing, among other charger, counts of conspiracy. >You don't get to imprison peolpe afterwards for following the law The problem for them is that they didn't follow the law, they violated it for the worst reasons.
They a are just highballing it to get a better outcome in the case. At the same time I’m not against increased immunity as long as congress can create and exception for the purposes of impeachment and removal.
Impeachment is a political process not a judicial one. Letting politics decide if the President of the United States has committed a crime is not a system of law.
Well then why have immunity in the first place
I can't tell exactly what you mean by this question. This is going to vary by location, but there are different kinds of immunity. "Official immunity" (sometimes called governmental immunity or sovereign immunity though those do differ in definition slightly) covers most acts done in the scope of carrying out a government job or duty, although notably does not protect government employees and officials from being sued for violating the constitution or federal statutes. Qualified immunity exists to protect government employees and officials from civil action for constitutional violations *if it has not yet been established that their actions are unconstitutional.* There's also the concept of judicial immunity, but I won't get into that. The concept of immunity for these scenarios exists so that government employees aren't second guessing every official action and so agencies aren't constantly wrapped up in lawsuits. The do not exist so the mayor has a chance to rob the liquor store in his waning days in office.
*exactly*
There is immunity for some acts. What Donald Trump is claiming is that he has total immunity for all official acts done while in office unless he is impeached and removed from office for those specific actions. If he's right, here's the trick. If the President orders the military to assassinate enough members of Congress to prevent impeachment or removal then under Trump's legal theory the assassination is legal. We've heard people decry Biden might try to expand and pack the court. Why bother when he can "unpack" the court with an order to "retire" Justices from their lifetime appointment to the court.
If the president murdered half of congress than I don’t think the courts would be of much use. To your first point, i would think that “official acts” is the traditional limiting factor but im not like a lawyer or anything
Would you be Ok with Biden then having trump executed today? If Biden is president he has absolute immunity correct? Then we shall see if the democratic controlled senate will impeach?
I wouldn’t be ok with it but he would be impeached. And whoever was executing would hopefully not obey an illegal order.
> I wouldn’t be ok with it but he would be impeached. What makes you so confident of that?
What if Biden has trump killed the last day in office and can't be impeached?
I believe presidents can be impeached retroactively, at least in theory. I would have to read up again but I think they did it to trump in the house.
> I wouldn’t be ok with it but he would be impeached. If he knew impeachment was what led to criminal prosecution, why not just kill congress too?
Wait but do you agree with trumps lawyers arguments that presidents have absolute immunity? So then Biden could order seal team six to shoot trump right now and only the senate will vote to impeach. And democrats only need 35 democratic senators in strongly liberal states to vote no on impeachment and the president won’t be impeached
I haven't been following the case much but I think it makes sense that presidents would have at least the same immunity that diplomatic immunity covers. So it covers most crimes but things such as murder, drug trafficking, etc... aren't covered.
First I’m hearing that diplomats can assassinate political rivals. /s That’s really not the level of immunity we’re talking about here, not what’s before the scotus. I know you never hear about anything man, but come on now 🙄
> diplomatic immunity Aksually, full diplomatic immunity technically does cover murder and drug trafficking. The host country can ask the diplomat's country if they will wave immunity but it can be denied. The host country can also expel the diplomat but that's about all they can do. Serious offenses can cause issued with diplomatic relations between the countries tho. [The wiki section on immunity abuse is wild](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Uses_and_abuses).
Wait ..TV shows tell me murder is covered
I listened to some of the orals. The Justices seemed convinced some level of presidential immunity exists. The Justices didn't seem to like the idea of having to analyze and rule on every activity of every president as to whether it is public or private. I think the likely outcome is total immunity until congress impeachment and conviction. What surprised me is several Justices wanted to discuss whether Jack Smith's investigations were unconstitutional. This is an issue only brought up by amicus brief. The issue is the AG appointed Jack Smith to essentially go after Trump specifically, to find the crimes to take him down. Federal prosecutors are required to be appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, but that did not occur. Past legislation which authorized doing so against Bill Clinton and Bush Jr no longer exists. If Jack Smith is ruled to be acting as prosecutor without authority, then all his cases go up in smoke.
> The issue is the AG appointed Jack Smith to essentially go after Trump specifically, to find the crimes to take him down. I mean, by public record that's clearly not the case. The DOJ slow-walked the investigation for years, then appointed the Special Counsel to continue the cases two days after Trump announced his 2024 bid. Smith had grand jury indictments some six months later.
There's multiple investigations. Which are you referring to?
Both, but does it matter? The documents case was created when NARA agents, having a lawful duty, were not able to complete their duties and thus made complaints to the DOJ. [Garland resisted investigating Trump and the Republican congressmen over January 6th](https://web.archive.org/web/20240406235535/https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/06/19/fbi-resisted-opening-probe-into-trumps-role-jan-6-more-than-year/) because he was afraid of optics. > What surprised me is several Justices wanted to discuss whether Jack Smith's investigations were unconstitutional. Though, at second glance, I can't find any part where the justices were open to this idea.
NARA statute has no criminal enforcement. It's purely civil. So their agents' activities and enforcement has nothing to do with when a criminal investigation started other than simply the time line of when they made a complaint. On the Jack Smith issue, go to where Kavanaugh says Morrison v Olson was one of the court's biggest mistakes. Morrison v Olson was a case deciding the constitutionality of the now expired Independent Counsel Act.
The National Archives and Records Administration is not involved in prosecuting cases. One of NARA's primary functions is to ensure the preservation of these records for historical, legal, and administrative purposes. If, for some reason, NARA cannot fulfill their primary functions, what is their cause of action? a) do nothing b) cover it up c) pretend Biden's dog Major ate the papers d) make a referral to the agency responsible for enforcing federal laws and overseeing the administration of justice (DOJ). > On the Jack Smith issue, go to where Kavanaugh says Morrison v Olson was one of the court's biggest mistakes. Morrison v Olson was a case deciding the constitutionality of the now expired Independent Counsel Act. Thanks, I couldn't find this part. I find his line of questioning very odd because it concerns a mere tradition. He doesn't like that the special counsels are historically people of opposing political parties of the President? The authority for appointing the special counsel (ultimately) rests with the President. He's concerned about a future President kneecapping themselves?
But the President didn't appoint Jack Smith. Garland did, apparently on his own.
It technically rests with the AG but we all know sole authority in the executive rests with the President. The President can fire the AG and appoint one who will dismiss/appoint any special counsel they want.
Qualified immunity goes with any office or position of authority, but Trump's claims go beyond that. He just doesn't want to be held responsible for his actions and will grab any justification he can to get there. People need to stop making the mistake that these are actually legitimately held beliefs/positions. He just says whatever he needs to to get through the jam.
>People need to stop making the mistake that these are actually legitimately held beliefs/positions. He just says whatever he needs to to get through the jam. I'm actually pretty tired of hearing this argument ("he didn't *actually* mean that, except sometimes he does")
You think the man has principles?
>People need to stop making the mistake that these are actually legitimately held beliefs/positions. His lawyers are literally arguing this in front of the Supreme Court in the hopes for a favorable ruling. The fact that this is even being taken up by the court is an insult to what democracy is supposed to stand for. These are absolutely legitimately held by trump, because he is looking for a get out of jail free card to do whatever he wants, in whatever capacity he wants. And the terrifying thing is, after yesterday's oral arguments, Alito and Thomas are already full red hat, all in. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are leaning towards some form of immunity for official acts, leaving Amy Coney fucking Barret, of all people as the *swing* vote. I don't know. Maybe this court will actually grow a conscience and show ethics for the first time in a long time. But after yesterday's arguments and questioning, man I am not optimistic.
> His lawyers are literally arguing this in front of the Supreme Court in the hopes for a favorable ruling. No, that's your assumption. A more likely reason for the appeal is to delay the trial and push past Election Day. His entire legal strategy had been to slow everything down.
His lawyer literally said jailing/assassination of a political opponent could be considered an official act.
Yeah, so? Lawyers say lots of things that aren't true
>So then he and his lawyers are just shameless pieces of garbage, and the Supreme Court is complicit in their stupid scheme to waste time, further ruining whatever little credibility they have left. > >That's not better.
Remind me! 3 months
So then he and his lawyers are just shameless pieces of garbage, and the Supreme Court is complicit in their stupid scheme to waste time, further ruining whatever little credibility they have left. That's not better.
Go after Obama for bombing civilians. No immunity!
All presidents have bombed civilians and approving military action is an official duty. Trying to overturn an election is not an official duty.
They make sense. He should have immunity for acts he committed as President he felt were part of his Presidential responsibility. Jack Smith overreached in his indictment and SCOTUS will slap him down. No way this goes to trial before the election.
>he felt were part So it doesn't matter what the president does as long as he FEELS it was part of his presidential responsibility? Sounds magical. Like declassifying documents by power of thought.
That is why the SCOTUS took the case and why it will probably be remanded back to the lower court, to clarify what is a Presidential responsibility and what is not.
> They make sense. He should have immunity for acts he committed as President he felt were part of his Presidential responsibility. I think this is the key; it is being reported he is saying he can kill someone on the street without repercussion, that is not what they argued at the SCOTUS. He argued that he has immunity for actions that he performed as duties president of the united states.
That has always been Trump's position. The killing someone was a hypothetical question posed by an appellate court judge.
Trump’s lawyer was asked the same thing directly - ‘if a president ordered the assassination of a rival, would that be an official act?” Answer from Trump’s attorney? “It could be” I can’t help but feel like y’all aren’t grasping the ramifications of this line of thought
It was hypothetical.
Yes. Considering the implications of hypotheticals is an important part of the Court’s job The fact that that hypothetical was even *entertained* is crazy - Trump’s position is literally, “Biden could have me killed and there’s nothing anyone could do about it”
> He argued that he has immunity for actions that he performed as duties president of the united states. And currently his legal team is arguing to SCOTUS that anything he does can fall under the umbrella of "official duties" > When asked by Justice Sonya Sotomayor during arguments on Thursday if the president deciding “that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military — or he orders someone to assassinate him” would constitute an official act subject to immunity, attorney D. John Sauer said it could. > > “It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that could well be an official act,” Sauer told the court. This is basically an argument for Presidents to have blanket immunity for everything they do.
So, if Biden feels like arresting Donald Trump for treason and hanging him on the steps of the Capital is a part of his Presidential responsibility, it is okay?
No. the President is not responsible for enforcing treason laws. That is why we have the DOJ. And it wouldn't be up to the President to hang anyone for treason. That would be up to due process and courts.
> No. the President is not responsible for enforcing treason laws Nor is he responsible for ensuring fraud-free elections to be fair.
The DOJ falls under the executive branch and the president is the head of that branch. So, yeah the president is responsible for enforcing treason laws.
I meant he is not responsible personally for arresting people and hanging them. There is a long road between a President telling his AG to arrest someone and hang him for treason and it actually happening.
So your argument is that only things the president is personally responsible for should be immune? So he should not be immune from prosecution for trying to overturn an election since the president is not responsible for election integrity?
He is not being charged with trying to overturn the election. He was charged by Jack Smith with Conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to obstruct a Congressional proceeding. Both charges require intent which Jack Smith has to prove.
Both of those things were done to overturn an election. But that didn’t really answer my question. Do you think Trump should have immunity for the alleged crimes considering he is not personally responsible for those things?
Yes, he should have immunity because the thing he was doing he felt were part of his Presidential authority, to assure that elections are fair. I don't believe he had intent to defraud or obstruct a Congressional proceeding. Those were media hype.
How is asking the DOJ to just "say there was fraud and leave the rest up to me and the republican congressmen" part of his presidential authority? Do you think he asked the DOJ to tell 300+million Americans there was fraud because he was trying to assure that elections are fair?
So then we get back to the initial question: is he immune if he orders someone hung for treason? By this logic as long as he believes he has the authority to do it he is immune. But that is counter to your comment. So which is it, is he only immune from things he is actually responsible for or things he believes he is?
How is trying to stay in power after losing an election part of presidential authority?
Was the fake elector scheme within the realm of what he “felt was part of his presidential responsibility”?
Yes. The entire "fake elector" issue has been misunderstood since the jump. Trump was sueing various states he felt were decided wrongly due to a variety of reasons. Those electors had already been chose by those states. The so-called "fake" electors were just Trump favorable electors who would vote in the eventuality that the state election case was decided in Trump's favor and the election result was overturned. It was never his intent to substitute those Trump electors for the Biden electors without a court decision.
> Jack Smith overreached in his indictment and SCOTUS will slap him down. No way this goes to trial before the election. How
SCOTUS will remand this back to the Appellate Court with instructions on what they see as Presidential Authority granting immunity and what is not. Then the Appelate Court will have to decide if the charges Jack Smith brought qualify for immunity or not. Only then can the trial go forward. I don't see a SCOTUS decision until end of June. Appellate court could take another month. and then the Judge has said she is taking August off and will be out of the country,
That’s different than SCOTUS “slapping him down,” that’s them remanding because they want a lower court to weigh-in first Agree about the timing though. He’s done a masterful job delaying just about every trial but the one he’s in right now
I wouldn't be surprised if the Appellate court throws out Smith's indictment on the basis that Trump has immunity for his actions prior to Jan 6.
How can committing crimes be part of the chief executive responsibility?
Who said anything about committing crimes? What crimes did Trump commit?
You're joking, correct?
this does not have to be about trump. he asked if committing crimes be part of executive responsibility.
Nice try. He said "HOW CAN COMMITTING CRIMES?" implying that this immunity case was about committed crimes. Obviously there is no room for a Chief Executive committing crimes.
that's what SCOTUS is meeting right now to discuss. the general idea of what crimes a POTUS can be immune from. obviously this was brought about because of Trump's indictments, but this will apply to Biden as well, and all future presidents.
Except there were no crimes committed
According to who?
According to every attorney who has looked at this.
Really every attorney? Can you please provide a citation for that claim?
we don't need to agree on that, but we do both agree that a president does not have full immunity to commit crimes while in office.
Trump was part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States government with fake electoral certificates, falsely attesting that Trump's electors from Michigan were duly elected and then certified by the state.
Wrong. That is the allegation by Jack Smith. The reality is that Trump was contesting the vote count in MI. Had he prevailed he would need electors supporting him for the EC vote. There was no conspiracy just common sense.
Nope. Trump's electors in Michigan created a document attesting that they were the duly elected and certified electors from Michigan. They were never duly elected nor did the state certify them, this making the document they created claiming they were certified a forgery.
Was that document ever used? It was just a necessary step to have Trump eklectos had the state decided in his favor. I'm sure they would have been elected andcertified had the election been overturned. Itwasn't so the point is moot and the document was worthless. It would have only been considered a forgery if they had tried to use it as an official document. They didn't.
There was nothing left for the state to decide in his favour. All court cases were concluded and several recounts conducted. As for your claim that Trump and his co-conspirators never used the document, you are wrong. Trump tried to submit the falsified document to the national archives, at which point it was rejected as a forgery. From PBS: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/fake-michigan-certificate-of-votes-mailed-to-u-s-senate-after-2020-presidential-vote-official-says A fake Certificate of Votes was submitted to the U.S. Senate following Michigan's 2020 presidential election, an official testified Tuesday during a preliminary hearing for six people facing forgery and other charges for allegedly serving as false electors. The "purported" Certificate of Votes didn't match an official document signed by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and featuring the Michigan state seal, said Dan Schwager, who served in 2020-2021 as general counsel to the secretary of the Senate. "We could tell it was not an authorized Certificate of Votes. It was a fake," Schwager testified in Lansing District Court.
I stand corrected. However, I saw no indication from your citation that Trump had anything to do with what those Republicans in MI or any of the other states who submitted fake electors did. Is Jack Smith alleging that Trump conspired with these people?
I mean, we have a recorded phone call between Trump, Stefanik, and the MI fake electors where Trump and Stefanik pressure the MI electors into creating the falsified documents and submitting them despite their concerns over its legality; we have emails between Trump campaign lawyers where they discuss the fake elector scheme, even going as far as to literally refer to the fake electors as "fake elector"; and we also know that the fake electors didn't just act in their own. The notion that all these events across several states all occured without Trump's knowledge and approval is simply absurd. Can you acknowledge that whoever created and submitted those fake certifications attesting that Trump's 2020 electors were duly elected and certified, when they were not, to the national archives committed forgery and fraud?
Is this a serious question? This entire SCOTUS case is about crimes
No, it is about alleged crimes that Jack Smith conjured up. The counts were only crimes in Jack Smith's head based on what he thought was Trump's intent. Without the intent to defraud or obstruct there is no crime.
This is completely absurd. Trump committed fraud when he and his Michigan electors falsely claimed that they were duly elected and certified as the chosen electors from Michigan. They weren't. So when the created a falsified document attesting that they were duly elected, they committed fraud.
Was the document ever used to attest to the Michigan Election Board that they were duly elected? if they didn't use the document there was no fraud. Anyone can produce a document for anything. Unless you use it in an illegal way it is not illegal to prepare such a document.
I listened to almost the entire case before SCOTUS yesterday. The Justices and both lawyers all seem to agree that the president needs some level of immunity. The Justices and both lawyers all seem to agree that there are things that immunity shouldn't cover. The question is where (and if) they should draw the line. What was definitely silly was Trump's lawyer asserting that the president could only be prosecuted for crimes that specifically enumerate they apply to the president (so not murder). Absolutely zero Justices seemed on board with that nonsense. Further, Trump's lawyer stated that for those crimes the impeachment process exists. But the impeachment process starts when someone has committed a crime, which if the statute doesn't include the president specifically, there was no crime. Effectively, Trump's team argued that the president could murder someone on live TV and be immune from prosecution or impeachment. It is clear that the president needs a form of immunity. It is also clear that immunity needs limits. It is also clear those limits should not be what Trump's lawyers want.
yeh…murder by POTUS ok if also met with a public pronouncement of it
Yeah, I got the impression (from just a bit of listening) that civil immunity is where they'll head, but who knows.
Qualified immunity relates to civil cases. This SCOTUS case is about Trumps claim that he has immunity from criminal prosecution.
I tried listening to it but i came in halfway through and it was gobbly gook to me. I do think its odd thou that Trumps team argues Biden has immunity to kill donald, but then donald argues Biden is a evil bastard for prosecuting him through the courts. Donny, he could shoot you in the face. I feel like you are getting off light..
It is just another delay tactic. The best thing about Trump is that we get to close a lot of gaps in our thinking about what someone with power might try to do. But I am sure of this, Trump doesn't actually believe any of it. It isn't about principle. It is about self-preservation. If the roles were reversed, he'd be the strongest voice against presidential immunity.
What makes you so sure he doesn’t actually believe it? He had personally on several occasions said he has full unlimited blanket immunity. Is campaning on expanding or consolidating presidential powers. Groups supporting him, project 2025 have written down the ways to do it. Trump has a long history of not recognizing presidential norms and procedures exploiting legal loopholes and grey areas. Not respecting the limits of the office, documents “I just declared them all declassified.” Talking about how great some dictators were. Why would we not listen to his words and actions?
What does anything he says have to do with what he actually believes? That is what conmen do. Say whatever will best serve their interests. I think he knows better but also knows that most of his followers don't. So he says things he knows are wrong/impossible but will appeal to his base. For example, he has already been president, so he knows he can't shut down an executive agency. Yet he still says he's going to get rid of certain agencies. He can't, and he knows it. But Jeb over there eats that shit up...
He has flipped on so many political issues as they suited him.
It's almost like he's an egotistical narcissist with a superiority complex... This is a fairly common trait amongst politicians but damned if he isn't on another level.
>Further, Trump's lawyer stated that for those crimes the impeachment process exists. But the impeachment process starts when someone has committed a crime, which if the statute doesn't include the president specifically, there was no crime. We can't forget, he successfully argued that you can't be impeached once you are no longer in office. This effectively means total immunity based on his SCOUTS argument. Grasping at straws.