690
Trump Lawyer Says Having Political Rival Killed Could Constitute 'Official' Presidential Act
(www.rollingstone.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
690 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3865 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's just bizarre to listen to...
Kagan: If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?
Sauer: If it's structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.
It's the only argument he can make. If he makes any other argument, his position on complete and total immunity is dead on the spot, as he would be conceding that the President isn't completely and totally immune after all.
Any concession, no matter how ridiculous the example, would invalidate his entire case immediately and he knows it. And if you ever hear him say "He would have to be impeached and convicted first", you'll know that he damn well knows how ridiculous his own arguments sound.
Judge: If President Trump were to run around the White House naked with a rubber glove on his head yelling 'Hi, I'm a squid! Nuke Montana so I can take out my rival octopus and his herd of glitter cows!', would that be an official act he would have immunity under?
Sauer: If it’s structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.
Doesn't matter what scenario you put there. Sauer's options are to repeat that line or essentially lose the case.
Alright you goddamn fascist enabler, explain how the fuck breaking the law either by stealing nuclear secrets or assassinating political opponents could be "structured as an official act." Explain the exact case law and legal mechanisms that explicitly give the office of the President this authority. And then, while you're exhaling the CO2 that some poor plant is gonna have to clean up, explain how private citizen Donald Trump shouldn't be prosecuted for committing these acts while he wasn't in office.
You fucking jackass.
Classified documents aren't a great example, as classification authority is delegated by the executive.
There is a law that describes the process. And it exists for exactly this reason: there is no evidence the files Trump stole had been declassified, and by the time it was discovered he had them he was no longer occupying the office.
I haven't read it. Mind linking it? I know the training I've been through makes it clear how classification authority is delegated down.
The Brennan Center gives a pretty easy lay explanation here.
Thanks.
The very next question should have been "And if he has 1/2 of the House of Representatives killed at the same time?"
why only half? isn't it more efficient to kill all members of all other branches along with all identified successors?
Because the other half would be his supporters.
well maybe now but if you want to be sure then double down and clean slate that shit.
While you're at it, write an executive order dissolving Congress and establishing the President as a dictator. It's an "official act" so it should be fine, right?
exactly. and no worries. we can still have elections. just like russia or north korea or china.
Now consider that Trump is already speaking in interviews as if he has the guaranteed immunity in his pocket...
He already promised he'll take nasty revenge on his rivals, have people removed who are thwarting him now. Promises drilling drilling drilling (I assume for oil) from day one, regardless if there's a law or rules against that which would normally need to be overturned first...
Somehow he is riding on the done deal he can do whatever he wants the moment he is "elected" and there will be no one to stop him.
I think that was covered under the coup question.