Of course it would be a mistake, it's something th
Post# of 123671
(Total Views: 116)
Posted On: 06/04/2024 10:50:32 PM
Of course it would be a mistake, it's something though that a former president who promises to be 'your retribution', your dictator for a day, would feel that HE could do if reelected and freed up by a SCOTUS decision to do whatever the f'k he wants.
Don't you see the absurdity of the SCOTUS even listening to the argument?
One of the justices in the Appeals Court asked it a president could dispatch SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent.
As Trump battles for 'absolute immunity,' question resurfaces about assassinating rivals
An appeals court judge asked what if a president gave the order to Seal Team 6.
ByAlexandra Hutzler
April 24, 2024, 3:04 PM
Special counsel Jack Smith is now urging the Supreme Court to reject former President Trump's c...Show More
It was maybe the most memorable moment so far in Donald Trump's case for "absolute presidential immunity" -- and it could come up again at the U.S. Supreme Court in historic arguments on Thursday.
The arresting question: Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not face criminal prosecution?
His lawyer suggested he could, under certain circumstances.
The exchange took place at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington in January, where Trump took his immunity fight after the theory was flatly rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing his federal election subversion case.
"I asked you a yes-or-no question," Judge Florence Pan said during the arguments. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival [and] who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"
"If he were impeached and convicted first," Trump attorney John Sauer responded.
"So your answer is no," Pan said.
Sauer, attempting to avoid a straight yes or no, said his answer was a "qualified yes" as he maintained a House impeachment and Senate conviction needed to occur before criminal liability can come into play. He also predicted that if a president did order an assassination, he would be "speedily" impeached.
Special counsel attorney James Pearce, arguing for the government, called such a theory "frightening."
"I mean, what kind of world are we living in?" Pearce argued. "If, as I understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigned, for example before an impeachment, it's not a criminal act ... I think that is extraordinarily frightening future."
Don't you see the absurdity of the SCOTUS even listening to the argument?
One of the justices in the Appeals Court asked it a president could dispatch SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent.
As Trump battles for 'absolute immunity,' question resurfaces about assassinating rivals
An appeals court judge asked what if a president gave the order to Seal Team 6.
ByAlexandra Hutzler
April 24, 2024, 3:04 PM
Special counsel Jack Smith is now urging the Supreme Court to reject former President Trump's c...Show More
It was maybe the most memorable moment so far in Donald Trump's case for "absolute presidential immunity" -- and it could come up again at the U.S. Supreme Court in historic arguments on Thursday.
The arresting question: Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not face criminal prosecution?
His lawyer suggested he could, under certain circumstances.
The exchange took place at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington in January, where Trump took his immunity fight after the theory was flatly rejected by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing his federal election subversion case.
"I asked you a yes-or-no question," Judge Florence Pan said during the arguments. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival [and] who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"
"If he were impeached and convicted first," Trump attorney John Sauer responded.
"So your answer is no," Pan said.
Sauer, attempting to avoid a straight yes or no, said his answer was a "qualified yes" as he maintained a House impeachment and Senate conviction needed to occur before criminal liability can come into play. He also predicted that if a president did order an assassination, he would be "speedily" impeached.
Special counsel attorney James Pearce, arguing for the government, called such a theory "frightening."
"I mean, what kind of world are we living in?" Pearce argued. "If, as I understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigned, for example before an impeachment, it's not a criminal act ... I think that is extraordinarily frightening future."
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼