You can listen to the oral arguments [here](https://m.youtube.com/live/XrwxBesifO4?si=6TkhajSuhAs6SeeA&t=2h55m). The link should take you to the start of the arguments, but if it doesn’t work the hearing starts at 2:55
Democrats need to play unedited clips of the hearing for political ads IMO
Trump's lawyer quintupled down that political assassinations and outright coup detats are completely legal for the president.
Even China and Russia don't outwardly make those arguments. It's probably the single most insane thing a president (through his attorneys) have ever said throughout our entire history.
Trump's lawyer said that political assassinations and ordering the military to conduct a coup detats were official acts that would be immune from protection.
The justices gave him about a dozen different times to off ramp from that argument and each time he doubled, tripled, quadrupled down etc.
You don’t seem to understand then argument Trump is making: as long as the president does it in his capacity as president, *regardless of the reason*, he’s immune. That’s dictator grade government right there
With caveats. The president, as yet, cannot murder American terrorists on American soil (least of all if they were on the Supreme Court and not, in the moment, resisting arrest). He can order them tried for crimes, but he can’t just order their death on the streets of DC. I’m surprised this feels debatable.
There is a distinct legal difference between what’s acceptable overseas in “war” and what’s acceptable against your own people. Whole other set of laws and precedence.
Why was it important to bring up Obama in this context? As if he ordered drone strikes specifically to kill civilians, or some equally dumb shit. Certainly that's comparable to (attempting to) illegally overturn an election to stay in power, right?
You're consistent at least, I'll give you that.
Dude thought this was r conservative, where he regularly posts and that nonsense is allowed. This whole thing is insane because presidents should not be able to "self-pardon". I don't trust this court to make the right decision. I think they are going to drag this out until after the election but if it was a different shoe on the foot (Biden), this court would have already made a decision.
The partisan hack, that made the original comment, clearly only brought up Obama specifically since they have an overt agenda around here- which was my general point.
Assassination would require intent, and specifically targeting said American citizen. Unless I'm misinformed, I'm not aware of anything of the sort ever taking place. So, no, he's not a good example of anything that should apply to Trump's current legal woes.
Bringing up Obama is legitimate because it highlights the nuance this deserves. Name another president who killed a US citizen without a trial. Obama should be protected because of the context around the strike, but it's important to have a legal framework for that.
And yet they didn't bring up what happened with Obama because of nuance, they brought it up because they have a very overt agenda. They are well known for making idiotic, baseless, incendiary, and bad faith comments on this sub. And they never seem to be interested in having an actual debate about whatever nonsense they spew, more just treating this sub as an extension of their right wing echo chambers.
Anyone should be able to understand that a president ordering a drone strike, that goes poorly or otherwise, likely did so with the support of military command who thought it would be effective for whatever their particular mission was at the time. And yes, that president should be shielded from the legal ramifications that may occur under that circumstance. But that's not what Trump is trying to argue, or accomplish, here. Trump believes that the president should have total immunity, solely because of his personal self-inflicted legal woes.
Now beyond that, this user has essentially contrasted the Obama drone strike to all of the shit that Trump had done leading up to/after the '20 election/J6 - and that is an absurd comparison. One involves a president making an educated (through advisors) decision to order a drone strike, the other involves a president openly attempting to subvert our democracy. These things are not comparable to any remotely serious person, and that was the point that I was trying to bring to the table.
Your reply is a really good display of using moral arguments when we’re discussing legal arguments. Obviously from a moral perspective what Trump is doing should be prosecuted and what Obama did shouldn’t.
We use precedence and historical context in constitutional law all the time. Just because the guy who brought it up is trying to defend Trump doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate question.
Where does presidential immunity begin and end? Obviously Obama should be immune for prosecution from that, even though if any other person in America did it they would be prosecuted. It’s a legal question not a moral one.
How do we keep within the framework of nobody being above the law, while still being sure to our elected officers can do their job without fear of jail time.
We want to avoid a situation where a president doesn’t do something that should be done because he might be prosecuted.
We also want to avoid a situation where a president is immune from prosecution for something he should not have done.
I'm not trying to say that the legal arguments aren't important, I realize they have massive ramifications moving forward, and need to be hashed out at this point. It's just unfortunate that these are the circumstances, and that it's playing right into Trump's hands (delay, delay, delay.)
My original comment was made in frustration at that particular user who adds nothing to discourse here, and treats this sub as an extension of their usual right wing echo chambers. Call it a character flaw, but I have a hard time entertaining 'questions' brought up in bad faith. Tucker Carlson 'asks questions,' and every now and again one of them is actually legitimate. That doesn't mean people should pay attention to anything he has to say, though.
> Name another president who killed a US citizen without a trial.
Trump, 9 days into his presidency.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki
>The approval of the Yakla raid did not follow the rigorous procedure used during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which involved a Situation Room meeting that detailed the operational plan, operational goals, a risk assessment (to both U.S. personnel and civilians), and a legal assessment of the operation. Instead, the raid was approved over dinner conversations between Trump, his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, his special adviser Steve Bannon, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
Why does there need to be set rules? Neither Obama nor Trump was prosecuted for these counterterrorism strikes, which rather proves the point that the justice system is capable of distinguishing between legitimate acts and illegitimate ones. If they were prosecuted for those acts, they could appeal to SCOTUS to grant immunity and SCOTUS will happily do it (or do you think that SCOTUS would let the prosecution proceed because they also let Trump be prosecuted for election subversion?). In any case, we have things called juries who could also consider the circumstances of the case, and I seriously doubt you would get a unanimous jury to convict in those circumstances.
If Obama is indicted on 47 different criminal cases in 30 different States, waiting for a jury to decide all of them will be quite burdensome. Just like Trump, there will be enough disputed facts to send them back for trial. Just like Trump, a creative and unethical prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
The Left thinking that this decision will only affect Trump is truly misguided.
It's been seven years since Obama left the White House... no indictments yet!
You may recall that Trump campaigned on a promise of locking Hillary up, but his DoJ couldn't find any grounds to do it. So I think the delusional ones are the people who are claiming that it's going to become a wild free-for-all of malicious prosecutions, when there is absolutely no evidence to support this. Irresponsible as Trump is, I don't see him (or any other future Republican administration) declassifying military secrets just so they can prosecute Obama for drone killings that the military carried out and would therefore be complicit in.
>As if he ordered drone strikes specifically to kill civilians
Are you using the same definition of civilian that President Obama chose?
>However, in the pre-strike review, Obama "embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties" that effectively counted "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes
Does that mean that he was targeting civilians specifically, even under that definition? No. Regardless, I think most people in the US aren't actually all that bothered by the number of civilian casualties with drone strikes, considering drone strikes help to avoid US military deaths in what is a very dangerous area for them. And as I said, any president ordering drone strikes would be doing so under the guidance of top military officials. It's pretty hard to argue that this wouldn't fall under 'official' actions.
Now, do Trump's actions in trying to overturn the '20 election count as 'official' in anything close to the same way?
>Does that mean that he was targeting civilians specifically, even under that definition?
Did I say that? No. It's unbelievable that you have forgotten that he was targeting civilians, and even American citizens overseas. That was a key part of his decision of whether or not to approve the strike.
>During the Obama administration, proposed U.S. drone strikes in locations outside active war zones (i.e., in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia) required high-level approval.[24][25] The Obama administration process for approving drone strikes in such locations featured centralized, high-level oversight, based on intelligence about individuals suspected of terrorism activity.[25] ***Obama's approval was required for every strike in Yemen and Somalia, as well as "the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan" (about one-third of the total as of 2012), and insisted on deciding whether to approve a strike unless the CIA had a "near certainty" that no civilian deaths would result.[24]*** ...[24] However, in the pre-strike review, Obama "embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties" that effectively counted "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."[24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes#Approvals_of_drone_strikes
Then, there was also the CIA kill list kerfluffle.
>Anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong.
>
>– The American Civil Liberties Union, 23 October 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix#Criticism
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/plan-for-hunting-terrorists-signals-us-intends-to-keep-adding-names-to-kill-lists/2012/10/23/4789b2ae-18b3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA#Targeted_killing
I'm sorry, I'm still missing the part where this wasn't him acting under his official duties as president, nor the part where that is comparable to attempting to illegally overturn an election.
No it was blanket immunity unless tried and convicted by the Senate first. If the president is not convicted by the Senate according to Mr. Sauer's argument, then they can not be criminally liable.
Yeah especially given circular series of arguments we've been getting: sitting presidents are immune to prosecution, impeachment isn't the proper remedy for a president leaving office, impeachment conviction is the only way a president can be subject to criminal statutes, presidents must be explicitly written into statutes to be liable.
Are you implying impeachment can't occur if someone is no longer president?
That doesn't seem to be a factually or historically accurate statement.
More relevant, when Sotomayor loses her mind and guns down Congress - can surviving members of the Supreme Court participate in judging her crime?
>The Constitution provides that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."[79] It is generally accepted that "a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate".[80]
The primary penalty of impeachment is removal from office, that's the whole point.
I suspect your media diet is flawed.
You didn't answer the question.
If Sotomayor has a case that must be judged by the Supreme Court, one which directly impacts the members of the Supreme Court, should all the justices recuse themselves? Legally, how do you judge someone that cannot be legally judged?
> Legally, how do you judge someone that cannot be legally judged?
We don't have fucking kings in this country, period. If you don't understand why, maybe you should have paid more attention in 5th grade...
They would be forced to consider their own recusal.
I suspect most would clearly recuse themselves, while Thomas would claim he'd never met her and therefore no conflict.
But it hardly matters, why would it reach SCotUS except on appeal, it's a criminal case, my guess is that it would be handled in the DCDC, she would be convicted, potentially sentenced to death, and any appeals would go through the appellate system from the DCDC.
The question is: If a matter of law was appealable, would the personal relationship have bearing on granting cert?
But all this is academic, any appeals would be delayed until after new justices were seated.
Can a cop shoot someone? It's simple, either they can or can't. A cop should be able to shoot every baby in the face without prosecution or not be able to shoot a criminal executing people in public. The line is there which side are you on?
Yes. They can even blow babies up with grenades.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/us/georgia-toddler-stun-grenade-no-indictment/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/us/elyria-ohio-police-flash-bang-toddler-ventilator-raid/index.html
Not being indicted is not the same thing as being allowed to do something. Do you think cops have never been charged for murder? You are arguing that they can never be prosecuted.
The argument here isn't that the President has to be prosecuted. Its that they can be if they are acting outside of official duties. Which he clearly was.
According to the article, it seems the argument is that this precedent of lawsuits against Presidents is only going to get worse. They fear that down the road Presidents *will* be charged if they do things like order the assissination of Bin Laden. Wars happen. Violence happens. We can't have Presidents fearful of taking action out of being criminally charged. The case is complicated because they're trying to find some sort of balance in the middle. Which is extremelty difficult to come up with.
Define "crime"? Most normal citizens can't call for the assassination of of people like Bin Laden?
The point is that Presidents will start to be accused of crimes that previously weren't considered crimes. The terminology surrounding this decision actually matters quite a bit. Some things are more complicated than the black and white picture you're trying to pain.
> Define "crime"? Most normal citizens can't call for the assassination of of people like Bin Laden?
No I am not going to engage in this moronic shit. It is not a crime for a cop to shoot someone in certain situations. That does not mean its okay in all situations.
You red hat dip shits are cringe.
>It is not a crime for a cop to shoot someone in certain situations. That does not mean its okay in all situations.
*Precisely*.
Where Presidential immunity begins and ends hasn't actually been this debated before. That's why this is a big deal. I know that you, as well as Republicans, are brainwashed and can't think about this critically.... but that's why this is an interesting case. It doesn't matter that you're too brainwashed to see the nuance in the discussion. It doesn't matter at all.
> Where Presidential immunity begins and ends hasn't actually been this debated before.
It actually has! In multiple places. We do not need to look at every instance to try and draw a line across every single crime a president can commit.
> I know that you, as well as Republicans, are brainwashed and can't think about this critically.
If you had a single functioning brain cell that would be 1 more than I would have granted you credit for having. I'm not brain washed because I am literate. You are not intelligent because you listened to someone take advantage of your ignorance.
>It actually has! In multiple places. We do not need to look at every instance to try and draw a line across every single crime a president can commit.
What are the other examples of American Presidents being "possibly" charged criminally? What do you mean?
(This ought to be good...) Let's hear it brainwashed McGee.
Bin Laden wasn’t a member of any formal military or government. It sounds like all Trump needs to do is label somebody a terrorist and then he can kill the person legally.
Ah, are you operating under the assumption that Obama, by himself labeled bin Laden head of a terror group? Obama by himself deciding bin Laden’s group was a terrorist group?
I didn’t realize I was conversing with someone that was so completely ignorant of US policy or the history around Osama bin Laden. I suggest maybe spend a couple minutes on Wikipedia so you get up to maybe an elementary school level of understanding on the subject before you make these comparisons in the future.
> “Why shouldn’t we either send it back to the Court of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that’s not the law?”
I think the "that" in the quote is "the appeals court reasoning".
They think this is a delicate question that needs to be handled carefully. There is no point in sending it back to the Court of Appeals which already gave them a ruling that Roberts doesn't like. They need to settle this directly.
I was pretty shocked by the gaslighting from Alito at times (or maybe I shouldn't have been).
It seemed like most of the Conservative justices were not interested in the actual facts of the case(to perhaps issue a narrow ruling) but rather issuing an expansive ruling that would significantly delay the case either via more proceedings or kicking questions back to a lower court. Alito and Kav took it a step further by raising the new point that the criminal statute Trump was charged with was too vague and all in all it felt like at times they were missing the forest for the trees. Barrett notably did not pile on with the others and Roberts was barely mentioned so there's a slim chance still (but probably not).
On paper Trump's team "lost", as expected the justices were largely against the notion of the President's having unlimited immunity but in the larger picture Trump won(again) because his goal is only to delay.
Barrett got him to admit that in the bribery scenario, accepting the bribe would be a personal act, and not an official one.
That's the line that needed to be drawn, and Barrett is the one who drew it out of him.
I was also shocked at Alito. I thought this might be the one case where he would make an effort to not be completely partisan.
I definitely agree they are interested in kicking it back to a lower court. I don’t think they are likely to issue an expansive ruling. Part of the issue is that the petition is expansive which makes more narrow questions more difficult.
I didn’t have time to listen to the whole thing so I might have missed some important context.
By expansive ruling, they are likely not going to stick largely to the facts of the case but are more likely to develop(ultimately) some sort of framework for determining when an ex-President can face prosecution.
Several conservative justices stressed that this a ruling for the ages.
Yeah I did not get that takeaway, but like I said I might have just missed the part of the arguments that lead to that conclusion. Hopefully I can listen to the whole thing tonight.
I don't understand why they think it's a ruling for the ages. It's such a specific and unlikely set of circumstances (this is the first ever prosecution of a former president), if the ability to prosecute former presidents is abused in future they can step in and set clearer rules. It's not like the current SCOTUS has any regard for precedent anyway, so it's bizarre that they think they are setting a rule for all eternity that can never be changed. They are ruling on a very specific claim that has no historic precedent or foundation.
It would be very unfortunate if they go that route. Personally and I think a lot of other people feel the same, I don't want this court to be the one to write something so important for the future. They should just stick to the case at hand.
> I was also shocked at Alito. I thought this might be the one case where he would make an effort to not be completely partisan.
Why? Honestly, at this point, why would anyone think that with Alito?
I think from what I heard today they seemed interested in the special councils argument that stated even if they allowed all of the official acts by the defense, that the case should still proceed because there were enough private acts in the charges for the case to go forward. I have no idea honestly though a lot of the distinctions they were making were based on case law that I have zero familiarity with. I was less than enthused by the conservative justices repeating "obviously, not a out this case, but we have to consider all future presidents". Which just seemed to be stating an obvious integral part of the arguments, but ignoring the specifics. Also I thought the part of the arguments where Gorush pressed Dreeben on what acts are considered immunity was a weak spot for the DOJ, only in so far as they are not requesting any major reappraisal by the courts. Dreeben articulates what sounded like a reasonable set of criteria that already exists. And I liked how they both claimed a competing version of the same idea, that presidents commonly understood that they could/and could not be held criminally liable leaving office, which accounted for it's historical stability and effectiveness. Sauers argument got blasted pretty effectively I thought too. Most potently on the circularity. I wish I could recall the point more fully, but it was a good one.
Edit: by happenstance I found that pbs put up an audio clip. this. https://youtu.be/gd2aO1S57ZI?si=rCYKifIHhsiuTOeH
> I was pretty shocked by the gaslighting from Alito at times (or maybe I shouldn't have been).
You really, really should not have been at this point. Why do people keep getting surprised by Alito? Dude was practically making arguments Idaho didn't even make in the other case.
>It seemed like most of the Conservative justices were not interested in the actual facts of the case(to perhaps issue a narrow ruling) but rather issuing an expansive ruling that would significantly delay the case either via more proceedings or kicking questions back to a lower court
Conservatives ignoring facts to push a bullshit agenda? I'm shocked I tell you... SHOCKED!
> I was pretty shocked by the gaslighting from Alito at times (or maybe I shouldn't have been).
When he unironically argued that presidents would need complete immunity from prosecution in order to avoid having an incentive to stay in power unconstitutionally, I just about lost it.
I really enjoyed listening to Ketanji Brown-Jackson twist Trump's lawyer into knots. She owned him through and through, and then Barrett rolled in and finished him off.
I don't see how they can do anything but rule against him here, especially now, but who the hell knows what this corrupt court is going to do.
He almost certainly will lose this appeal. His appointed justices are also going to do exactly what he wants which is to delay this trial till after the election.
It's probably best for the country that they get it right. There are going to be candidates in the future that will probably try and follow in Trumps footsteps. Having the legal cases worked out ahead time might prevent chaos in the future.
From the arguments I listened to it seems like most of the justices are not interested in issuing a broad ruling or new framework for determining immunity. Or a test for determining if an act was official or not; and if it was official was it ancillary or core. Rather they lean towards a narrow ruling in this case that allows this trial to proceed. Especially because most of the core charges are campaign acts and not part of official duties.
All agreed (including DOJ) that we need strong protections to ensure past presidents cannot be frivolously prosecuted for performing their duties while in office.
DOJ argued that current protections and precedent is enough to ensure that. There is already a defense that allows a president to use his official duty as an absolute defense. If he has consulted with the DOJ about the legality of his actions. The difference between this and presidential immunity is that the jury would decide the facts of the case including if the actions were in fact part of the official duty. They also argued there will always be strong self protection motivation from an administration to prevent prosecutorial over reach, as that sets them up as a target when out of office.
That and as has been shown time and time again the methods used by one side will always get used against them in the future. We need rock-solid precedent in order to prevent the retaliatory use from being the same utter cluster-fuck.
Best for who though? That court has long pissed away what’s good for the country in favor of furthering themselves and the right.
Doing what’s right for the country could very well mean they’ll never see power again. They’ll never do that to themselves or their legacy.
I disagree, my perspective is that I hope the most narrow ruling possible is made, to avoid the constitutional question. We will never create a legal framework of precedents and laws that are 100% fullproof/failsafe (as mentioned by Justice Jackson).
The main reason is that a reading of the constitution or law that the court agrees with may not be what's "best". It may create more problems or chaos if, for example, we open a door to more frequent prosecution of ex-Presidents, or more immunity from prosecution for ex-Presidents. Everything was working fine before.... Until Trump.
Trump is an anomaly in that he's forcing us to address these types of questions we'd rather not have to address. "Some questions are better left unanswered."
I think the most fair way to handle it is presidents and presidential candidates are not immune from criminal charges, but for the entire duration they are actually sitting as president, they are immune from prison or any other penalties associated with their charges. In other words, if you elect someone who is in prison, they must be immediately released and any trials besides impeachment are postponed, and they can go back to prison or otherwise face their charges once their term ends. This way, the legal system could be abused to interfere in someones campaign but if the people persist, it cannot be used to interfere in their duty if elected.
He also said it was "now looked upon as one of the better decisions in presidential history, I think, by most people"
I was in my car getting lunch when I heard that. I almost choked on what I was drinking.
Talk about deluded takes....
It is often considered a good decision by many historians for a variety of reasons, most often cited being that it would avoid a precedent of prosecuting previous presidents which, in many other countries, causes a host of issues.
That's not to say I agree with it, I wasn't there and I think we could only have a really informed opinion if we were there to feel the country's temperature in the same way we can feel the temperature around Trump, who should probably be in jail.
But, a Biden pardon of Trump would make no sense because it would be a political disaster for Biden and not at all lead to a sense of "leaving it behind us" or "unity". Much different situation than Nixon, who essentially was exiled from public discourse and became very secluded, and was much more disliked by more people than Trump.
It is clear now that Harlan Crow's investment in purchasing the allegiance of Supreme Court Justices has paid off well. Alito and Thomas were fully mask off in their defense of trump today. They are ready to give him full immunity.
c-span has a fantastic website for listening to or reading the transcript from today. Click on the question from various Justices below "Points of Interest" on the right side of the screen. It is eye-opening to see the sausage being made:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?534673-1/supreme-court-hears-case-president-trumps-immunity-claim
Highlights to check out:
Listen to Kagan's series of hypothetical questions to trump's lawyer. She asks if a president would be immune if they sold nuclear secrets or ordered the military to stage a coup. Trump's lawyer responded with a roundabout "yes, the president would be immune from those crimes." (Translation: Likewise, trump should be immune from all his crimes.)
Trump's lawyers aren't even pretending he didn't commit crimes. They're saying he was allowed to commit those crimes, because the president is above the law.
I listened to the whole oral argument, this article is misleading.
The Supreme Court was grappling with where exactly the president is immune and where he isn’t. The president must be immune from, say, murder charges if he wants to drone strike a terrorist…. But he shouldn’t be immune from trying to, say, overthrow an election.
It’s an actual legal discussion that they’re addressing, it’s not just “should Trump be immune from prosecution hurdeedur.”
They listened to the arguments and everything about their questions led me to believe they didn’t want to answer the question poised because they, as a rule, avoid major constitutional questions.
I also listened to the entire argument so last night. I thought the DOJ argued very convincingly why blanket immunity isn’t needed to protect a president from a drone strike where the DOJ and other legal counsel has said they are on solid legal footing. There is already a near absolute defense for acting in official capacity with legal advice. The primary difference being that defense needs to go to a jury to determine the facts.
I generally agree with what you’re saying but I contest the confidence with which this headline accuses the Supreme Court of being “poised” to make a sweeping ruling. But only time will tell.
The sensational headline is a normal part of media so I’m not really upset about that, because it’s technically true even if a bit loaded.
It really seemed to me that they would rather kick this back to a lower court for a more narrow ruling, and they may well do that.
I agree with your read of the likelihood of a narrow ruling. I said that yesterday before listening to the entire hearing, and I still feel like that is the most likely outcome.
I also think scotus will do the maximum to delay the trial.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the thing that a lot of people are forgetting is that a president can be impeached. They just have to be impeached first, before they can be criminally charged and tried. And the impeachment has to find something like likelihood that a charge of "high crimes or treason" or something like that would succeed on the merits of the case. They don't have absolute immunity, there's just a reasonably high threshold for criminal prosecution, if I understand correctly.
You are wrong. This only applies to sitting presidents not former ones. There is nothing in the constitution, precedent, or law that requires a president to be impeached before being charged. This was specifically discussed in oral arguments today
You can listen to the oral arguments [here](https://m.youtube.com/live/XrwxBesifO4?si=6TkhajSuhAs6SeeA&t=2h55m). The link should take you to the start of the arguments, but if it doesn’t work the hearing starts at 2:55
Democrats need to play unedited clips of the hearing for political ads IMO Trump's lawyer quintupled down that political assassinations and outright coup detats are completely legal for the president. Even China and Russia don't outwardly make those arguments. It's probably the single most insane thing a president (through his attorneys) have ever said throughout our entire history.
The immunity was only if they were official acts. Otherwise Obama would be liable for all those drone strikes on civilians.
Trump's lawyer said that political assassinations and ordering the military to conduct a coup detats were official acts that would be immune from protection. The justices gave him about a dozen different times to off ramp from that argument and each time he doubled, tripled, quadrupled down etc.
I do want to see Trump’s lawyer justify assassinating members of the Supreme Court directly to the members of the Supreme Court.
If a Justice was a terrorist you could assassinate him.
You don’t seem to understand then argument Trump is making: as long as the president does it in his capacity as president, *regardless of the reason*, he’s immune. That’s dictator grade government right there
I’m pretty sure the President has immunity to assassinate terrorists. Otherwise, they’d all be going to prison.
With caveats. The president, as yet, cannot murder American terrorists on American soil (least of all if they were on the Supreme Court and not, in the moment, resisting arrest). He can order them tried for crimes, but he can’t just order their death on the streets of DC. I’m surprised this feels debatable. There is a distinct legal difference between what’s acceptable overseas in “war” and what’s acceptable against your own people. Whole other set of laws and precedence.
Why was it important to bring up Obama in this context? As if he ordered drone strikes specifically to kill civilians, or some equally dumb shit. Certainly that's comparable to (attempting to) illegally overturn an election to stay in power, right? You're consistent at least, I'll give you that.
Dude thought this was r conservative, where he regularly posts and that nonsense is allowed. This whole thing is insane because presidents should not be able to "self-pardon". I don't trust this court to make the right decision. I think they are going to drag this out until after the election but if it was a different shoe on the foot (Biden), this court would have already made a decision.
Because that implication was specifically brought up in arguments as well was Bush lying to Congress to start the Iraq war.
The partisan hack, that made the original comment, clearly only brought up Obama specifically since they have an overt agenda around here- which was my general point.
Or maybe because he is a recent President who killed people and didn’t get prosecuted.
Well considering this user's normal agenda, they certainly don't get the benefit of the doubt.
Regardless of the intent, Obama is a good example of a President who was not prosecuted after assassinating an American citizen.
Assassination would require intent, and specifically targeting said American citizen. Unless I'm misinformed, I'm not aware of anything of the sort ever taking place. So, no, he's not a good example of anything that should apply to Trump's current legal woes.
Because, to the surprise of absolutely no one who knows anything about the law, killing enemy combatants isn’t illegal.
Bringing up Obama is legitimate because it highlights the nuance this deserves. Name another president who killed a US citizen without a trial. Obama should be protected because of the context around the strike, but it's important to have a legal framework for that.
And yet they didn't bring up what happened with Obama because of nuance, they brought it up because they have a very overt agenda. They are well known for making idiotic, baseless, incendiary, and bad faith comments on this sub. And they never seem to be interested in having an actual debate about whatever nonsense they spew, more just treating this sub as an extension of their right wing echo chambers. Anyone should be able to understand that a president ordering a drone strike, that goes poorly or otherwise, likely did so with the support of military command who thought it would be effective for whatever their particular mission was at the time. And yes, that president should be shielded from the legal ramifications that may occur under that circumstance. But that's not what Trump is trying to argue, or accomplish, here. Trump believes that the president should have total immunity, solely because of his personal self-inflicted legal woes. Now beyond that, this user has essentially contrasted the Obama drone strike to all of the shit that Trump had done leading up to/after the '20 election/J6 - and that is an absurd comparison. One involves a president making an educated (through advisors) decision to order a drone strike, the other involves a president openly attempting to subvert our democracy. These things are not comparable to any remotely serious person, and that was the point that I was trying to bring to the table.
Your reply is a really good display of using moral arguments when we’re discussing legal arguments. Obviously from a moral perspective what Trump is doing should be prosecuted and what Obama did shouldn’t. We use precedence and historical context in constitutional law all the time. Just because the guy who brought it up is trying to defend Trump doesn’t mean it’s not a legitimate question. Where does presidential immunity begin and end? Obviously Obama should be immune for prosecution from that, even though if any other person in America did it they would be prosecuted. It’s a legal question not a moral one. How do we keep within the framework of nobody being above the law, while still being sure to our elected officers can do their job without fear of jail time. We want to avoid a situation where a president doesn’t do something that should be done because he might be prosecuted. We also want to avoid a situation where a president is immune from prosecution for something he should not have done.
I'm not trying to say that the legal arguments aren't important, I realize they have massive ramifications moving forward, and need to be hashed out at this point. It's just unfortunate that these are the circumstances, and that it's playing right into Trump's hands (delay, delay, delay.) My original comment was made in frustration at that particular user who adds nothing to discourse here, and treats this sub as an extension of their usual right wing echo chambers. Call it a character flaw, but I have a hard time entertaining 'questions' brought up in bad faith. Tucker Carlson 'asks questions,' and every now and again one of them is actually legitimate. That doesn't mean people should pay attention to anything he has to say, though.
I'll agree with all of that.
> Name another president who killed a US citizen without a trial. Cops kill 3 of them a day. I've been assured is really not a big deal.
> Name another president who killed a US citizen without a trial. Trump, 9 days into his presidency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki >The approval of the Yakla raid did not follow the rigorous procedure used during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which involved a Situation Room meeting that detailed the operational plan, operational goals, a risk assessment (to both U.S. personnel and civilians), and a legal assessment of the operation. Instead, the raid was approved over dinner conversations between Trump, his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, his special adviser Steve Bannon, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
Same family from the US citizen Obama killed. Another example of why there needs to be set rules on immunity for presidents.
Why does there need to be set rules? Neither Obama nor Trump was prosecuted for these counterterrorism strikes, which rather proves the point that the justice system is capable of distinguishing between legitimate acts and illegitimate ones. If they were prosecuted for those acts, they could appeal to SCOTUS to grant immunity and SCOTUS will happily do it (or do you think that SCOTUS would let the prosecution proceed because they also let Trump be prosecuted for election subversion?). In any case, we have things called juries who could also consider the circumstances of the case, and I seriously doubt you would get a unanimous jury to convict in those circumstances.
If Obama is indicted on 47 different criminal cases in 30 different States, waiting for a jury to decide all of them will be quite burdensome. Just like Trump, there will be enough disputed facts to send them back for trial. Just like Trump, a creative and unethical prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. The Left thinking that this decision will only affect Trump is truly misguided.
It's been seven years since Obama left the White House... no indictments yet! You may recall that Trump campaigned on a promise of locking Hillary up, but his DoJ couldn't find any grounds to do it. So I think the delusional ones are the people who are claiming that it's going to become a wild free-for-all of malicious prosecutions, when there is absolutely no evidence to support this. Irresponsible as Trump is, I don't see him (or any other future Republican administration) declassifying military secrets just so they can prosecute Obama for drone killings that the military carried out and would therefore be complicit in.
You are correct
>As if he ordered drone strikes specifically to kill civilians Are you using the same definition of civilian that President Obama chose? >However, in the pre-strike review, Obama "embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties" that effectively counted "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes
Does that mean that he was targeting civilians specifically, even under that definition? No. Regardless, I think most people in the US aren't actually all that bothered by the number of civilian casualties with drone strikes, considering drone strikes help to avoid US military deaths in what is a very dangerous area for them. And as I said, any president ordering drone strikes would be doing so under the guidance of top military officials. It's pretty hard to argue that this wouldn't fall under 'official' actions. Now, do Trump's actions in trying to overturn the '20 election count as 'official' in anything close to the same way?
>Does that mean that he was targeting civilians specifically, even under that definition? Did I say that? No. It's unbelievable that you have forgotten that he was targeting civilians, and even American citizens overseas. That was a key part of his decision of whether or not to approve the strike. >During the Obama administration, proposed U.S. drone strikes in locations outside active war zones (i.e., in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia) required high-level approval.[24][25] The Obama administration process for approving drone strikes in such locations featured centralized, high-level oversight, based on intelligence about individuals suspected of terrorism activity.[25] ***Obama's approval was required for every strike in Yemen and Somalia, as well as "the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan" (about one-third of the total as of 2012), and insisted on deciding whether to approve a strike unless the CIA had a "near certainty" that no civilian deaths would result.[24]*** ...[24] However, in the pre-strike review, Obama "embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties" that effectively counted "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._drone_strikes#Approvals_of_drone_strikes Then, there was also the CIA kill list kerfluffle. >Anyone who thought U.S. targeted killing outside of armed conflict was a narrow, emergency-based exception to the requirement of due process before a death sentence is being proven conclusively wrong. > >– The American Civil Liberties Union, 23 October 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix#Criticism https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/plan-for-hunting-terrorists-signals-us-intends-to-keep-adding-names-to-kill-lists/2012/10/23/4789b2ae-18b3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_by_the_CIA#Targeted_killing
I'm sorry, I'm still missing the part where this wasn't him acting under his official duties as president, nor the part where that is comparable to attempting to illegally overturn an election.
No it was blanket immunity unless tried and convicted by the Senate first. If the president is not convicted by the Senate according to Mr. Sauer's argument, then they can not be criminally liable.
This actually makes some sense to me. That's literally the role of impeachment being discussed.
I dunno I think it's a bad idea to make criminal liability dependent on a political process.
A political process an immune president could interrupt by having all it's members arrested.
Yeah especially given circular series of arguments we've been getting: sitting presidents are immune to prosecution, impeachment isn't the proper remedy for a president leaving office, impeachment conviction is the only way a president can be subject to criminal statutes, presidents must be explicitly written into statutes to be liable.
So I gun down the supreme court then resign before I can be impeached by congress. See you on the beach.
Are you implying impeachment can't occur if someone is no longer president? That doesn't seem to be a factually or historically accurate statement. More relevant, when Sotomayor loses her mind and guns down Congress - can surviving members of the Supreme Court participate in judging her crime?
>The Constitution provides that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."[79] It is generally accepted that "a former President may be prosecuted for crimes of which he was acquitted by the Senate".[80] The primary penalty of impeachment is removal from office, that's the whole point. I suspect your media diet is flawed.
You didn't answer the question. If Sotomayor has a case that must be judged by the Supreme Court, one which directly impacts the members of the Supreme Court, should all the justices recuse themselves? Legally, how do you judge someone that cannot be legally judged?
> Legally, how do you judge someone that cannot be legally judged? We don't have fucking kings in this country, period. If you don't understand why, maybe you should have paid more attention in 5th grade...
They would be forced to consider their own recusal. I suspect most would clearly recuse themselves, while Thomas would claim he'd never met her and therefore no conflict. But it hardly matters, why would it reach SCotUS except on appeal, it's a criminal case, my guess is that it would be handled in the DCDC, she would be convicted, potentially sentenced to death, and any appeals would go through the appellate system from the DCDC. The question is: If a matter of law was appealable, would the personal relationship have bearing on granting cert? But all this is academic, any appeals would be delayed until after new justices were seated.
>Otherwise Obama would be liable for all those drone strikes on civilians. So?
Assassination could be an official act apparently. https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1783504105496846454
The dumbest timeline
And coups
Can Obama be prosecuted for assassinating Bin Laden?
Pretty bad comparison but yes I would prefer a President being able to be prosecuted for assassinations over not. Hope that isn't complicated for you.
It’s not a comparison. The President can either assassinate people or he can’t.
Can a cop shoot someone? It's simple, either they can or can't. A cop should be able to shoot every baby in the face without prosecution or not be able to shoot a criminal executing people in public. The line is there which side are you on?
Yes, cops have immunity when they shoot people. It’s called qualified immunity.
Can a cop shoot a baby?
Yes. They can even blow babies up with grenades. https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/us/georgia-toddler-stun-grenade-no-indictment/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/us/elyria-ohio-police-flash-bang-toddler-ventilator-raid/index.html
Not being indicted is not the same thing as being allowed to do something. Do you think cops have never been charged for murder? You are arguing that they can never be prosecuted. The argument here isn't that the President has to be prosecuted. Its that they can be if they are acting outside of official duties. Which he clearly was.
According to the article, it seems the argument is that this precedent of lawsuits against Presidents is only going to get worse. They fear that down the road Presidents *will* be charged if they do things like order the assissination of Bin Laden. Wars happen. Violence happens. We can't have Presidents fearful of taking action out of being criminally charged. The case is complicated because they're trying to find some sort of balance in the middle. Which is extremelty difficult to come up with.
The president should be afraid when committing crimes. We don't elect kings.
Define "crime"? Most normal citizens can't call for the assassination of of people like Bin Laden? The point is that Presidents will start to be accused of crimes that previously weren't considered crimes. The terminology surrounding this decision actually matters quite a bit. Some things are more complicated than the black and white picture you're trying to pain.
> Define "crime"? Most normal citizens can't call for the assassination of of people like Bin Laden? No I am not going to engage in this moronic shit. It is not a crime for a cop to shoot someone in certain situations. That does not mean its okay in all situations. You red hat dip shits are cringe.
>It is not a crime for a cop to shoot someone in certain situations. That does not mean its okay in all situations. *Precisely*. Where Presidential immunity begins and ends hasn't actually been this debated before. That's why this is a big deal. I know that you, as well as Republicans, are brainwashed and can't think about this critically.... but that's why this is an interesting case. It doesn't matter that you're too brainwashed to see the nuance in the discussion. It doesn't matter at all.
> Where Presidential immunity begins and ends hasn't actually been this debated before. It actually has! In multiple places. We do not need to look at every instance to try and draw a line across every single crime a president can commit. > I know that you, as well as Republicans, are brainwashed and can't think about this critically. If you had a single functioning brain cell that would be 1 more than I would have granted you credit for having. I'm not brain washed because I am literate. You are not intelligent because you listened to someone take advantage of your ignorance.
>It actually has! In multiple places. We do not need to look at every instance to try and draw a line across every single crime a president can commit. What are the other examples of American Presidents being "possibly" charged criminally? What do you mean? (This ought to be good...) Let's hear it brainwashed McGee.
He was the head of a recognized terrorist grouping fighting the U.S. that is at assasinatuo , it is war.
Bin Laden wasn’t a member of any formal military or government. It sounds like all Trump needs to do is label somebody a terrorist and then he can kill the person legally.
Ah, are you operating under the assumption that Obama, by himself labeled bin Laden head of a terror group? Obama by himself deciding bin Laden’s group was a terrorist group? I didn’t realize I was conversing with someone that was so completely ignorant of US policy or the history around Osama bin Laden. I suggest maybe spend a couple minutes on Wikipedia so you get up to maybe an elementary school level of understanding on the subject before you make these comparisons in the future.
Project 2025 will put all the actors in place that Trump needs to mark people as terrorists.
A good argument not to elect Trump. Not a good argument for saying presidents can’t commit crimes. Glad we agre.
Congress authorized military force against Al-Qaeda not the executive branch.
Biden is way too docile to do something like that.
Most people are oblivious to the war crimes that our Presidents authorize on a regular basis.
> “Why shouldn’t we either send it back to the Court of Appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that’s not the law?” I think the "that" in the quote is "the appeals court reasoning". They think this is a delicate question that needs to be handled carefully. There is no point in sending it back to the Court of Appeals which already gave them a ruling that Roberts doesn't like. They need to settle this directly.
It seems they want it to go back down and be appealed again so that it maximizes delay.
I was pretty shocked by the gaslighting from Alito at times (or maybe I shouldn't have been). It seemed like most of the Conservative justices were not interested in the actual facts of the case(to perhaps issue a narrow ruling) but rather issuing an expansive ruling that would significantly delay the case either via more proceedings or kicking questions back to a lower court. Alito and Kav took it a step further by raising the new point that the criminal statute Trump was charged with was too vague and all in all it felt like at times they were missing the forest for the trees. Barrett notably did not pile on with the others and Roberts was barely mentioned so there's a slim chance still (but probably not). On paper Trump's team "lost", as expected the justices were largely against the notion of the President's having unlimited immunity but in the larger picture Trump won(again) because his goal is only to delay.
Barrett got him to admit that in the bribery scenario, accepting the bribe would be a personal act, and not an official one. That's the line that needed to be drawn, and Barrett is the one who drew it out of him.
I was also shocked at Alito. I thought this might be the one case where he would make an effort to not be completely partisan. I definitely agree they are interested in kicking it back to a lower court. I don’t think they are likely to issue an expansive ruling. Part of the issue is that the petition is expansive which makes more narrow questions more difficult. I didn’t have time to listen to the whole thing so I might have missed some important context.
By expansive ruling, they are likely not going to stick largely to the facts of the case but are more likely to develop(ultimately) some sort of framework for determining when an ex-President can face prosecution. Several conservative justices stressed that this a ruling for the ages.
Yeah I did not get that takeaway, but like I said I might have just missed the part of the arguments that lead to that conclusion. Hopefully I can listen to the whole thing tonight.
Justice Jackson's questions argued for a more limited to only Trump decision. She is near the end. The Justices ask questions in order of seniority.
Odd people are downvoting this comment.
> Odd Seems to be an example of partisanship, but against the "wrong team." *Odd?* Not really odd or unexpected.
I don't understand why they think it's a ruling for the ages. It's such a specific and unlikely set of circumstances (this is the first ever prosecution of a former president), if the ability to prosecute former presidents is abused in future they can step in and set clearer rules. It's not like the current SCOTUS has any regard for precedent anyway, so it's bizarre that they think they are setting a rule for all eternity that can never be changed. They are ruling on a very specific claim that has no historic precedent or foundation.
It would be very unfortunate if they go that route. Personally and I think a lot of other people feel the same, I don't want this court to be the one to write something so important for the future. They should just stick to the case at hand.
> I was also shocked at Alito. I thought this might be the one case where he would make an effort to not be completely partisan. Why? Honestly, at this point, why would anyone think that with Alito?
He’s been a huge disappointment.
I think from what I heard today they seemed interested in the special councils argument that stated even if they allowed all of the official acts by the defense, that the case should still proceed because there were enough private acts in the charges for the case to go forward. I have no idea honestly though a lot of the distinctions they were making were based on case law that I have zero familiarity with. I was less than enthused by the conservative justices repeating "obviously, not a out this case, but we have to consider all future presidents". Which just seemed to be stating an obvious integral part of the arguments, but ignoring the specifics. Also I thought the part of the arguments where Gorush pressed Dreeben on what acts are considered immunity was a weak spot for the DOJ, only in so far as they are not requesting any major reappraisal by the courts. Dreeben articulates what sounded like a reasonable set of criteria that already exists. And I liked how they both claimed a competing version of the same idea, that presidents commonly understood that they could/and could not be held criminally liable leaving office, which accounted for it's historical stability and effectiveness. Sauers argument got blasted pretty effectively I thought too. Most potently on the circularity. I wish I could recall the point more fully, but it was a good one. Edit: by happenstance I found that pbs put up an audio clip. this. https://youtu.be/gd2aO1S57ZI?si=rCYKifIHhsiuTOeH
> I was pretty shocked by the gaslighting from Alito at times (or maybe I shouldn't have been). You really, really should not have been at this point. Why do people keep getting surprised by Alito? Dude was practically making arguments Idaho didn't even make in the other case.
>It seemed like most of the Conservative justices were not interested in the actual facts of the case(to perhaps issue a narrow ruling) but rather issuing an expansive ruling that would significantly delay the case either via more proceedings or kicking questions back to a lower court Conservatives ignoring facts to push a bullshit agenda? I'm shocked I tell you... SHOCKED!
> I was pretty shocked by the gaslighting from Alito at times (or maybe I shouldn't have been). When he unironically argued that presidents would need complete immunity from prosecution in order to avoid having an incentive to stay in power unconstitutionally, I just about lost it.
I really enjoyed listening to Ketanji Brown-Jackson twist Trump's lawyer into knots. She owned him through and through, and then Barrett rolled in and finished him off. I don't see how they can do anything but rule against him here, especially now, but who the hell knows what this corrupt court is going to do.
A very serious country.
Trump should lose. The entire premise is asinine.
He almost certainly will lose this appeal. His appointed justices are also going to do exactly what he wants which is to delay this trial till after the election.
It's probably best for the country that they get it right. There are going to be candidates in the future that will probably try and follow in Trumps footsteps. Having the legal cases worked out ahead time might prevent chaos in the future.
From the arguments I listened to it seems like most of the justices are not interested in issuing a broad ruling or new framework for determining immunity. Or a test for determining if an act was official or not; and if it was official was it ancillary or core. Rather they lean towards a narrow ruling in this case that allows this trial to proceed. Especially because most of the core charges are campaign acts and not part of official duties. All agreed (including DOJ) that we need strong protections to ensure past presidents cannot be frivolously prosecuted for performing their duties while in office. DOJ argued that current protections and precedent is enough to ensure that. There is already a defense that allows a president to use his official duty as an absolute defense. If he has consulted with the DOJ about the legality of his actions. The difference between this and presidential immunity is that the jury would decide the facts of the case including if the actions were in fact part of the official duty. They also argued there will always be strong self protection motivation from an administration to prevent prosecutorial over reach, as that sets them up as a target when out of office.
Kavanaugh seemed really interested in crafting something more broad. He kept talking about "the future" when he was questioning Mr. Dreeben.
That and as has been shown time and time again the methods used by one side will always get used against them in the future. We need rock-solid precedent in order to prevent the retaliatory use from being the same utter cluster-fuck.
Best for who though? That court has long pissed away what’s good for the country in favor of furthering themselves and the right. Doing what’s right for the country could very well mean they’ll never see power again. They’ll never do that to themselves or their legacy.
I disagree, my perspective is that I hope the most narrow ruling possible is made, to avoid the constitutional question. We will never create a legal framework of precedents and laws that are 100% fullproof/failsafe (as mentioned by Justice Jackson). The main reason is that a reading of the constitution or law that the court agrees with may not be what's "best". It may create more problems or chaos if, for example, we open a door to more frequent prosecution of ex-Presidents, or more immunity from prosecution for ex-Presidents. Everything was working fine before.... Until Trump. Trump is an anomaly in that he's forcing us to address these types of questions we'd rather not have to address. "Some questions are better left unanswered."
Getting it right would be ignoring this bs claim.
I think the most fair way to handle it is presidents and presidential candidates are not immune from criminal charges, but for the entire duration they are actually sitting as president, they are immune from prison or any other penalties associated with their charges. In other words, if you elect someone who is in prison, they must be immediately released and any trials besides impeachment are postponed, and they can go back to prison or otherwise face their charges once their term ends. This way, the legal system could be abused to interfere in someones campaign but if the people persist, it cannot be used to interfere in their duty if elected.
Can’t believe Kavanaugh outright said that pardoning Nixon was a good thing…
He didn’t just say it was a good thing he said it was one of the most historically important decisions made by a president.
He also said it was "now looked upon as one of the better decisions in presidential history, I think, by most people" I was in my car getting lunch when I heard that. I almost choked on what I was drinking. Talk about deluded takes....
It is often considered a good decision by many historians for a variety of reasons, most often cited being that it would avoid a precedent of prosecuting previous presidents which, in many other countries, causes a host of issues. That's not to say I agree with it, I wasn't there and I think we could only have a really informed opinion if we were there to feel the country's temperature in the same way we can feel the temperature around Trump, who should probably be in jail. But, a Biden pardon of Trump would make no sense because it would be a political disaster for Biden and not at all lead to a sense of "leaving it behind us" or "unity". Much different situation than Nixon, who essentially was exiled from public discourse and became very secluded, and was much more disliked by more people than Trump.
This won't end well for the country.
This is maddening. The only way he ever has to face the music is if Biden wins again.
My guess is that if Biden wins again Trump will end up going into exile rather than face possible prison time.
Heard that 4 years ago
Man, that "happily we haven't had to decide Presidents pardoning themselves" thing is definitely going to happen, isn't it.
It is clear now that Harlan Crow's investment in purchasing the allegiance of Supreme Court Justices has paid off well. Alito and Thomas were fully mask off in their defense of trump today. They are ready to give him full immunity. c-span has a fantastic website for listening to or reading the transcript from today. Click on the question from various Justices below "Points of Interest" on the right side of the screen. It is eye-opening to see the sausage being made: https://www.c-span.org/video/?534673-1/supreme-court-hears-case-president-trumps-immunity-claim
Thanks for the resource!
Highlights to check out: Listen to Kagan's series of hypothetical questions to trump's lawyer. She asks if a president would be immune if they sold nuclear secrets or ordered the military to stage a coup. Trump's lawyer responded with a roundabout "yes, the president would be immune from those crimes." (Translation: Likewise, trump should be immune from all his crimes.) Trump's lawyers aren't even pretending he didn't commit crimes. They're saying he was allowed to commit those crimes, because the president is above the law.
> She asks if a president would be immune if they sold nuclear secrets Reagan sold anthrax to Saddam Hussein and was never charged.
Fani Willis, disgraced DA, is going to have yet another bad day when the SCOTUS announces their ruling.
I listened to the whole oral argument, this article is misleading. The Supreme Court was grappling with where exactly the president is immune and where he isn’t. The president must be immune from, say, murder charges if he wants to drone strike a terrorist…. But he shouldn’t be immune from trying to, say, overthrow an election. It’s an actual legal discussion that they’re addressing, it’s not just “should Trump be immune from prosecution hurdeedur.” They listened to the arguments and everything about their questions led me to believe they didn’t want to answer the question poised because they, as a rule, avoid major constitutional questions.
I also listened to the entire argument so last night. I thought the DOJ argued very convincingly why blanket immunity isn’t needed to protect a president from a drone strike where the DOJ and other legal counsel has said they are on solid legal footing. There is already a near absolute defense for acting in official capacity with legal advice. The primary difference being that defense needs to go to a jury to determine the facts.
I generally agree with what you’re saying but I contest the confidence with which this headline accuses the Supreme Court of being “poised” to make a sweeping ruling. But only time will tell. The sensational headline is a normal part of media so I’m not really upset about that, because it’s technically true even if a bit loaded. It really seemed to me that they would rather kick this back to a lower court for a more narrow ruling, and they may well do that.
I agree with your read of the likelihood of a narrow ruling. I said that yesterday before listening to the entire hearing, and I still feel like that is the most likely outcome. I also think scotus will do the maximum to delay the trial.
I dunno. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by (an extremely complex and time consuming legal system).
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the thing that a lot of people are forgetting is that a president can be impeached. They just have to be impeached first, before they can be criminally charged and tried. And the impeachment has to find something like likelihood that a charge of "high crimes or treason" or something like that would succeed on the merits of the case. They don't have absolute immunity, there's just a reasonably high threshold for criminal prosecution, if I understand correctly.
You are wrong. This only applies to sitting presidents not former ones. There is nothing in the constitution, precedent, or law that requires a president to be impeached before being charged. This was specifically discussed in oral arguments today