Post New

Tiedrich:

this morning, every establishment Democrat is denouncing political violence and wishing the best for Donny.

as for the Republicans, I wish I could say the same. but they’re not — they’re acting like a bunch of meth-tweaked monkeys right now, screaming incoherently and flinging their shit in all directions.

these grievance-babies are incapable of having a rational reaction to anything.

pretend-hillbilly J.D. Vance set down his glass of $500-a-bottle Chateau Lafite-Rothschild, picked up his phone and typed out the following paranoid fantasy.

“Today is not just some isolated incident. The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”

of course, J.D. knows better than to pin the blame on Biden — he’s just being cynical as fuck, throwing red meat to the MAGA cultists while at the same time showing Dear Leader what a loyal Vice President he’ll be. maybe they won’t hang him.

Georgia’s Mike Collins — one of the most MAGAfied Republicans in the House — was a lot more blunt in his unhinged tweet.

“Joe Biden sent the orders.”

fuck straight off, Mike.

there’s only one person in the presidential race right now who has actually called for someone to take up arms against his opponent, and it isn’t Joe Biden.

Though, I've been reading and watching Legal Eagle (YouTube litigator). And, apparently, POTUS could have sent SEAL team 6 with impunity. Sotomayor and Jackson in their dissents basically explained why. POTUS officially overseas the military. If he gave them an order, that's (by the SCOTUS) an official part of his job. Therefore, all information surrounding that action would be subject to immunity. So you couldn't even investigate that it was a misuse of his power.

Biden would never do that. I wouldn't put it past convict Trump.

Though, I've been reading and watching Legal Eagle (YouTube litigator). And, apparently, POTUS could have sent SEAL team 6 with impunity. Sotomayor and Jackson in their dissents basically explained why. POTUS officially overseas the military. If he gave them an order, that's (by the SCOTUS) an official part of his job. Therefore, all information surrounding that action would be subject to immunity. So you couldn't even investigate that it was a misuse of his power.

Yah, I watched that, and while I didn't have that interpretation (My initial interpretation was just like Albaby's, though he says it much better), there have been some astute legal pros in the Constitutional area, that say the same thing - so I have no problem with someone thinking that.

Sotomayor and Jackson in their dissents basically explained why. POTUS officially overseas the military. If he gave them an order, that's (by the SCOTUS) an official part of his job. Therefore, all information surrounding that action would be subject to immunity. So you couldn't even investigate that it was a misuse of his power.

Biden would never do that. I wouldn't put it past convict Trump.

Biden SHOULD do that to test the court. Trump potentially committed treason by acting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. The court has given him immunity from prosecution for treasonous acts. The only way to defend the constitution is for Biden to issue an order for the military to arrest Trump and hold him in Guantanamo indefinitely. There would be no legal recourse, according to the Trump ruling, against such a patriotic abuse of power.

Other than it violates the UCMJ (look it up) and a small document called the Constitution.

We need better sparring partners here. You guys don’t know which end of a keyboard is up.

“ Other than it violates the UCMJ (look it up) and a small document called the Constitution.”

Does it though? SCOTUS suggests otherwise with its new constitutional immunity clause. Depending on individuals to refuse the direct order of the commander in chief seems to be a thin thread upon which to hang the safety of our democracy. The only sanction against such an “official act” is impeachment.

Other than it violates the UCMJ (look it up) and a small document called the Constitution.

We need better sparring partners here. You guys don’t know which end of a keyboard is up

But is it an official act?

My contentions is that it isn't, that a criminal act clearly outside of the President's authority makes it an unofficial act.(or something similar). YMMV. But we have to see and there are some famous Constitutional lawyers saying that it is an official act.

You do realize that the UCMJ won't make a difference to the President under current interpretations, but to the Generals... what would they be depending on... Pardon Power? I would hate to depend on that.

I like it. You didn't have to order a hit. Just confine him to gitmo.

Apparently it doesn't matter that it violates due process, since it is an official action by POTUS as part of his duties.

That should end up back in scotus, but if all the info is privileged, how could it?

If he gave them an order, that's (by the SCOTUS) an official part of his job. Therefore, all information surrounding that action would be subject to immunity. So you couldn't even investigate that it was a misuse of his power.

As we've discussed, none of that is necessarily true.

If Biden gives an order that he is prohibited from giving under the Constitution, it's almost certainly not an official act. An official act is an exercise of the President's constitutional power. He's prohibited by the Constitution (not just criminal law) from assassinating someone. So this can't be an official act.

Second, while information regarding an official act is subject to immunity, that only means it's not admissible in a criminal trial to prove something about that official act. It doesn't mean it's not subject to investigation, and it doesn't mean it's not reviewable as part of a determination of whether his was (or was not) official.

Finally, WRT Gitmo - the President's official actions are immune from after the fact criminal prosecution, but they're still subject to the Court's ordinary jurisdiction. If the President does something unlawful, SCOTUS (or any federal court) can still order him to stop doing it. As the Court has done to Biden several times this term. He can't be criminally prosecuted having done something that violates a Congressional statute (for example), but the Court can order him to stop doing it.

So if Biden orders Trump to Gitmo without due process, the courts can (and would) order him to release Trump immediately, either through an injunction or a writ of habeus corpus - regardless of whether immunity attached to that act.

If Biden gives an order that he is prohibited from giving under the Constitution, it's almost certainly not an official act.

So where, exactly, does it say in the constitution there are limits on a President's ability to give orders to the military? Where is the concept of a "lawful order"? Paraphrasing Nixon, if the President orders it, it's lawful.

Before you go citing chapter and verse, that's not my point here. The point is to raise the question and then tie it up in courts as long as possible using every conceivable argument to every tiny step along the way. You do that until the answer to the original question no longer matters.


So if Biden orders Trump to Gitmo without due process, the courts can (and would) order him to release Trump immediately, either through an injunction or a writ of habeus corpus - regardless of whether immunity attached to that act.

Putting my argument into practice here, Biden could fight the order to release Trump. Assuming it would be a federal trial court that would issued the order, you start by questioning their jurisdiction. Maybe claim it's an act of war against the US and not subject to ordinary civilian criminal proceedings, but a military proceeding. Again, it doesn't matter if it's something fairly settled, you make the argument anyway just to cause delay. When the appeal goes against you, appeal to the supreme court. When Biden loses there, you question the order itself - the court erred in their injunction or writ. This continues at every step of the way, and in the mean time you go on a big PR campaign claiming the courts are biased and crooked and aren't allowing the President to do his job protecting the American people. Most importantly, the status quo would stay - Trump would remain in Gitmo.

Obviously, this is all a hypothetical. But the idea that you just roll over because the court ordered something is what has come into question. The lesson Trump has taught all of us is that you don't roll over, no matter what the court says. You merely continue arguing over every little bit you can find to argue about until everyone tires of it - or runs out of money to continue the fight.

--Peter

--Peter

I am not a lawyer. But if Sotomayor and Jackson are concerned, so am I. What I have read about their dissent doesn't mesh with the picture you're turning to paint.

You still could be correct. Not saying you aren't. But a lot of legal scholarship I'm reading and/or hearing don't agree with your optimistic take.

Al is 100% correct. Presidents don't just get to override the Constitution.
If you think Trump will have roving teams of SEALs running around the country offing democrats, then you need to be on a fair number of meds.

Al is 100% correct. Presidents don't just get to override the Constitution.

Yes. Like they don’t get to get the US involved in a foreign war without a declaration of war from Congress. Except Vietnam, I guess. And Afghanistan. And Yemen. And …

Or stop white people from consorting with native Americans, as the Supreme Court famously found leading to the meme “The Supreme Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it.” (Not really what Jackson said, but close enough for the internet.)

Unilaterally suspending Habius Corpus, as Lincoln famously did during the Civil War.

Roosevelt gave himself the power to censor the mail, expand Federal agencies, and opened confidential census information (leading to the Japanese internment) all without enabling legislation or opinion on the Constitutionality of such. Was the imprisonment of American citizens on the basis of race Constitutional? I guess so.

The Executive detainment of people at Gitmo for 20 years certainly flies in the face of the Constitution, but I guess it must be OK, yes?

FDR also outlawed the private ownership of gold. Where is that in the Constitution?

There’s more, lots more. The Muslim travel ban. Obama pushed the envelope in getting parts of Obamacare through. Reagan engaged in lots of extra-constitutional acts, from trading arms for hostages to sending troops into foreign countries without Congressional approval.

But, hey, nothing to worry about. Trump seems quite moderate about all this, right?

And, apparently, POTUS could have sent SEAL team 6 with impunity.

Posse Commitatus.

Trump seems quite moderate about all this, right?

Actually he does.
None of you people are really thinking clearly, but ask yourself these questions:

If Trump wanted to be a dictator, why didn't he lock the nation down and declare Martial Law for COVID in 2020?

If Trump wanted to be a dictator, why didn't he cancel the 2020 elections using COVID as an excuse?

Doesn't matter. He's immune, and his documents are privileged.

Kings didn't have to worry about the law, and that's what scotus just gave us

Trump seems quite moderate about all this, right?
Actually he does.
None of you people are really thinking clearly, but ask yourself these questions:
If Trump wanted to be a dictator, why didn't he lock the nation down and declare Martial Law for COVID in 2020?
If Trump wanted to be a dictator, why didn't he cancel the 2020 elections using COVID as an excuse?

There was certainly no legal basis to cancel the elections, and he didn’t have the temerity to issue a full time lockdown, he wasn’t even sure he had the power to do a lot of things.

That has changed. He now believes he has the courts, he will probably have the House and Senate, and worst of all, he has his inflated sense of self. He is arguably *far worse* than he was 4 years ago. He now says one of his biggest mistakes was listening to his advisors when they tried to talk him down off some extreme position. This time that likely won’t happen.

And, as virtually every person who has worked with him to any degree now agrees, he’s a farking idiot.

You do that until the answer to the original question no longer matters.

That rarely happens. Not the "raising every possible argument and appealing at every turn" part - that happens all the time. But it's rare that you can do that until the answer no longer matters.

Trump's immunity claims ended up delaying his trial by only about six months through procedural matters. Because he won, it will cause a lot more delay. It's only because of the extremely rare combination of circumstances that the prosecution brought the charges two and a half years after the election and that defendant in this case is likely to win the Presidency that a six month delay is going to matter. If there had been a case at the end of the terms of Clinton, Obama, or Bush (either one) the answer to the original question would not be mooted by the review.

Most importantly, the status quo would stay - Trump would remain in Gitmo.

No, he wouldn't. The district court would immediately order his release - and unless that court or the appellate court stayed that order pending appeal, he would be released immediately. Just because you appeal something doesn't mean the status quo remains in place.

I am not a lawyer. But if Sotomayor and Jackson are concerned, so am I. What I have read about their dissent doesn't mesh with the picture you're turning to paint.

I'm not concerned. I've read a lot of dissents. When the dissent genuinely thinks that there's a plausible problem with applying the majority opinion, they will actually spend some time elaborating on how that will play out. They'll specifically apply the majority ruling to the scenario they're talking about and discuss how it would fit the facts of that scenario. When they toss things off in a "parade of horribles" in a single sentence, it's usually more of a rhetorical point than a considered projection of the legal doctrine in another situation.

Was the imprisonment of American citizens on the basis of race Constitutional?

It was found to be so, yes. The question isn't whether the Supreme Court always gets it right (and Korematsu is an infamous decision) - it's whether the President's actions are, in fact, subject to SCOTUS review to determine whether they are within the scope of his Constitutional powers.

They are. Ever since Marbury v. Madison, the Court has reserved to itself the right to tell the other branches whether their actions comply with the scope of their Constitution authority.

The district court would immediately order his release - and unless that court or the appellate court stayed that order pending appeal, he would be released immediately.

As has been pointed out several times: OK judge. Go enforce your order.

If a President could manage to convince the military to lock up a political opponent, do you think that a judge's order to release that person will be followed? And yes, what we're talking about here is the end of the law as we know it. I don't think that's completely out of the question, given the wide berth the USSC has handed to the President.

I'm not concerned. I've read a lot of dissents. When the dissent genuinely thinks that there's a plausible problem with applying the majority opinion, they will actually spend some time elaborating on how that will play out.

Something tells me you're a fast reader, or skimmer. That's why I miss Scalia as a conservative judge, because he would have mentioned the problem in the dicta and it would at least be partially sorted. I think your interpretation is the way it will work, but I do wish they had addressed it.

I'm still unhappy with inchoate crimes being out of reach.

There was certainly no legal basis to cancel the elections, and he didn’t have the temerity to issue a full time lockdown, he wasn’t even sure he had the power to do a lot of things.

Bbbbbut he was a dictator, a trampler overer of left wing rights all over the place, right?

So when presented with the Golden Excuse to cancel the elections and tell Americans to stay home while he ran the country for longer...he didn't do it?

So when presented with the Golden Excuse to cancel the elections and tell Americans to stay home while he ran the country for longer...he didn't do it?

No, he wasn’t bold enough at that time.

He waited until January 6th for that.

No, he wasn’t bold enough at that time.

I see. He wasn't bold enough or powerful as the President...so he waited until he lost the election that he could have postponed if he were an actual dictator.

I see. He wasn't bold enough or powerful as the President...so he waited until he lost the election that he could have postponed if he were an actual dictator.

Jan 6 should give anyone pause. We had a President not accept the results of a free and fair election, and attempt a self coup. Things that go on in banana republics happening here now. Threw some Jan 6ers in jail. Now this Ex Pres has a very good chance of becoming Pres again, and none of us really know where he might stop, we will just get to see.

Dope1: So when presented with the Golden Excuse to cancel the elections and tell Americans to stay home while he ran the country for longer...he didn't do it?

1.) Orange Jesus spent months telling Americans the virus was no big deal. And his cult quickly became anti-lockdown, ant-social distancing, and anti-vaccine. Kinda' tough to make the case that there was some big old national emergency when you've spent the year telling Americans the pandemic was no big deal and they believe the virus is a cold.

2.) He thought he was going to win.

3.) He still had some reasonably sane lifelong government people working in his administration who threatened to resign when he started going too far off the rails.

4.) After losing the election, he still tried to retain the White House through the courts. After losing in the courts, he tried to get the states to give him the presidency by twisting arms and conspiring with fake electors.

5.) At the same time, he tried to strongarm Pence into turning the election over to the House (and him).

6.) When Pence resisted, he then assembled a mob in the Capitol and sent them to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes.

7.) On January 6th, 7th, and all the way through the 20th, there were mass resignations in the White House, his Cabinet, and by other high-ranking officials: Mick Mulvaney, Stephanie Grisham, Sarah Matthews, Rickie Niceta, Elaine Chao, Elinore F. McCance-Katz, Tyler Goodspeed, John Costello, Betsy DeVos, Eric Dreiband, Chad Wolf, Jason Schmid, Alex, Azar, Chris Liddell, Matthew Pottinger, Ryan Tully, Robert C. O'Brien, Arjun Garg, Brianna Manzelli, Kirk Shaffer, Bailey Edwards, and Andrew Giacini.

Those remaining made it clear they'd resign in protest, too, if he continued ignoring his Constitutional responsibilities.

So how many times and in how many ways does Orange Jesus have to try to subvert democracy and ignore the Constitution before you, ya' know, get it?

Fast forward and now the Supreme Court has told him to just fill his administration with stooges and anything goes... and that's all Orange Jesus will have in his administration and throughout government: loyalist stooges who don't give a rat's ass about the law or the Constitution.

Game o-, err, democracy over.

"Does it though? SCOTUS suggests otherwise with its new constitutional immunity clause. Depending on individuals to refuse the direct order of the commander in chief seems to be a thin thread upon which to hang the safety of our democracy. The only sanction against such an “official act” is impeachment."

Especially since it is well known that if someone in the military tells the president "No, that is an illegal order", the president can then just ask other people until he finds someone who will go along. It is no different than what Trump did with the DoJ. When Jeff Sessions started telling him "No" too much, he replaced him with Bill Barr who would say yes more often. Then when Bill Barr started reaching his breaking point, he was ready to replace him with Jeffery Clark.

Point is, depending upon individuals to refuse a direct order of the commander in chief is a recipe for disaster because there is always someone who will say yes.

Fast forward and now the Supreme Court has told him to just fill his administration with stooges and anything goes... and that's all Orange Jesus will have in his administration and throughout government: loyalist stooges who don't give a rat's ass about the law or the Constitution.

When the CIA tries to read your mind, remember to pack aluminum foil around your ears.
*twirls finger about head*

If a President could manage to convince the military to lock up a political opponent, do you think that a judge's order to release that person will be followed?

Yes. Even Trump abided by all the court orders that went against him: the ones where he lost his election challenges, the ones where his immigration policies were shut down, etc. Especially since the order wouldn't apply just to the President - after all, the President isn't the one who is actually keeping Trump locked up in Gitmo. It would be issued to the Secretary of Defense as well, and he isn't immune from going to jail.

It would be issued to the Secretary of Defense as well, and he isn't immune from going to jail.

And so would the theoretical members of SEAL Team 6. They’d be hauled off to Leavenworth for breaking, oh, most of the UCMJ.

albaby1: Even Trump abided by all the court orders that went against him...

Umm. That was before the immunity ruling.

albaby1: ...after all, the President isn't the one who is actually keeping Trump locked up in Gitmo. It would be issued to the Secretary of Defense as well, and he isn't immune from going to jail.

Ya' mean Sec of Defense Michael Flynn?

Great argument. Thanks for playing.

Umm. That was before the immunity ruling.

Why would that matter? None of those cases involved any criminal liability for the President. And the President's been immune from civil liability for acts taken in office for decades now.

Ya' mean Sec of Defense Michael Flynn?

Great argument. Thanks for playing.

And everyone below him. As pointed out by Dope1, every single person who would be involved in abducting and imprisoning Donald Trump (in this scenario) on the orders of Joe Biden would be at risk of a lifetime in prison for violating countless criminal and military codes.

Plus, I don't think Flynn is seriously in the running for SecDef. He didn't even make the short list when Trump was riffing on potential appointments:

https://archive.ph/yJPzK

....and there's no benefit to Trump to naming him. Plenty of other people that he could pick - including Pompeo - that would be ardent supporters and team players without getting his transition team wrapped around the axle in an extremely tough confirmation battle.

And everyone below him. As pointed out by Dope1, every single person who would be involved in abducting and imprisoning Donald Trump (in this scenario) on the orders of Joe Biden would be at risk of a lifetime in prison for violating countless criminal and military codes.

But they'll get pardoned - or will they? :)

But they'll get pardoned - or will they? :)

They can't be fully pardoned, because kidnapping Trump (or whomever the political opponent) is certainly a violation of a host of state laws as well.

It's just a silly scenario, because it requires scores (if not hundreds or more) of people all being willing to commit very serious crimes for no benefit to themselves.

There is a gaping whole in your argument. It presumes normality.

Trump will appoint sycophants. They will, by and large, be incompetent, but loyal. They will also be protected by a promise of presidential pardon. So Trump will be immune, and he will pardon anyone who carries out his orders (should they get into legal trouble).

Like I said, SCOTUS just gave us a king.**




**I'm reminded of a movie. I forget which one. Medieval times, a person carried a parchments with the royal seal saying "the bearer has done what he has done with my approval" (or words to that effect). That's what we're in for if Trump wins.***


***And, frankly, a corrupt Dem candidate could do it, too. The immunity ruling was a travesty that -if not reversed- will eventually lead to the end of our democracy.

There is a gaping whole in your argument. It presumes normality.

Trump will appoint sycophants.

It doesn't presume normality. It presumes that people that aren't Trump syncophants won't be willing to risk going to jail for the rest of their lives for Trump.

Trump isn't going to get to appoint Seal Team 6. He's not going to appoint their immediate supervisors. He's not going to get to appoint all the individual soldiers who would be necessary to transport someone to Gitmo, or hold them there - all of whom would be guilty of state crimes which could not be pardoned, in addition to federal crimes.

And quite honestly, even a lot of Trump sycophants will still balk at actually committing an inarguable public crime for him. Trump is not a man who inspires a lot of actual devotion. It's not like you could have Seal Team 6 kidnap someone like Gavin Newsom and not have people notice, and I can't imagine any SecDef - no matter how sycophantic - being willing to take the hit of being arrested by California officials and counting on Trump to get him out of it.

It's just a silly scenario, because it requires scores (if not hundreds or more) of people all being willing to commit very serious crimes for no benefit to themselves.

You mean like Jan 6? :--) Yes, I think MAGA could pull it off, but not our side. Imagine trying to get us to converge on the ellipse and then march to the Capitol shouting Hang Kamila Harris!

But first you have to have months of. "Something big is gonna happen!" Then all those wanting to go to jail will self choose and head for the ellipse. Getting on Seal Team 6 is a way of self choosing. I played with military kids growing up. Lots of nutty officers per the kids.

every single person who would be involved in abducting and imprisoning Donald Trump (in this scenario) on the orders of Joe Biden would be at risk of a lifetime in prison for violating countless criminal and military codes.

Presidential pardons.

One recent President has already used them as a way to grant favors.

Promise a pardon, and you’ll find people willing to break the law.

—Peter

And quite honestly, even a lot of Trump sycophants will still balk at actually committing an inarguable public crime for him.

[cough] January 6 [cough]

—Peter

albaby1: It's just a silly scenario, because it requires scores (if not hundreds or more) of people all being willing to commit very serious crimes for no benefit to themselves.

I'll leave this conversation by conceding that this is a silly scenario but, then, we've never had a candidate who ran on a "retribution" platform before, either.

And until Trump, we've never had a president who refused to fulfill his constitutional duty to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power, either. Or a president involved in a fake electors conspiracy. Or a president who tried to have state election officials change votes. Or a president who walked out of the White House with hundreds of documents marked Secret, Top Secret, NOFORN, REL FVEY, TK, SI, ORCON, and HUMINT, either. Or a president who entered into a business partnership with a foreign government, either.

And your suggestion that "he didn't do it before so he won't do it again" is even sillier. He didn't have a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card from the supreme court back then and he was constrained by mostly competent White House lawyers his first go around. He won't make that mistake again.

Finally, he has already promised to pardon everyone convicted for Jan 6 and has pardoned many of his co-conspirators in the past. A president's authority to pardon is unlimited and absolute.

So, sorry, don't expect next time to be like last time.

You're making the same mistake the media are making: normalizing a narcissistic sociopath.

But first you have to have months of. "Something big is gonna happen!" Then all those wanting to go to jail will self choose and head for the ellipse.

That's a very different scenario than convincing actual military officers - in Seal Team 6 and above them all the way up the chain of command - to commit hardcore premeditated felonies. Not a bunch of idiots getting swept up in the moment.

As commonone recognized, this is a silly scenario - the number of "normies" that would have to be involved in a Seal Team 6 operation on U.S. soil is rather large, and none of them would be immune from criminal charges (even if you stipulated that the President would be, and I don't). Plus, the attack on the target would (in this hypothetical) take place within a U.S. State - which has its own criminal justice system and its own prosecutors and police force. No one can be pardoned for state crimes - so participating in a hit against Gavin Newsom would buy you a life in a California prison, even if Trump pardoned you for federal crimes.

This isn't normalizing Trump. He's a vile, egotistical narcissist who would love to play-act at being a dictator for a while. But he doesn't have a dictatorship to do it in. In a true dictatorship, you don't have a politically powerful opposition party that holds positions of real authority all across the country. Even if Democrats lose control of the House and Senate, those folks still have significant political power. And we have a country with States - political bodies that are not merely subdivisions of the federal government, but that are headed by sovereign governments with their own police powers - half of which are run by Democratic governors or have a Democratically controlled legislature.

So someone like Trump can't just muse aloud that he wishes Gavin Newsom would disappear, leading to him having a horrible end that has no consequences. Because unlike somewhere with a real dictatorship, there's lots of people who would care about that, and who have the power to make everyone involved pay for that. You can't have a dictatorship without fundamentally restructuring not just the federal government, but the state governments and their relationship to the federal government is well. And Trump is far to lazy to undertake anything like that.

States that can't get the names of the SEAL team members because those are protected as part of the "official powers" of the POTUS. Can't prosecute them if you can't find out who they are. What's a state gonna do?

As long as Trump has a cadre of sycophants, and the SCOTUS has given him broad immunity and declared all documents privileged, there really isn't much you can do to stop him. Unless the Dems have the House and Senate, of course. But they're not likely to get both. So the Dems will be eunuchized.

States that can't get the names of the SEAL team members because those are protected as part of the "official powers" of the POTUS. Can't prosecute them if you can't find out who they are. What's a state gonna do?

Once again, that's not what the SCOTUS said. That information is not privileged. It simply can't be admitted into evidence in a criminal trial in order to establish motivation for, or inchoate criminal liability from, the immune acts.

Immunity has nothing to do with discoverability.

A military covert team? Probably not discoverable, either. POTUS's have been hiding information like that under the "classified" umbrella for decades.

A military covert team? Probably not discoverable, either. POTUS's have been hiding information like that under the "classified" umbrella for decades.

I cannot even imagine that a federal district judge, faced with a request by prosecutors for the disclosure of the identities of the members of Seal Team 6 that carried out an assassination of a U.S. Governor on U.S. soil, would decline to order the military to disclose those people on the grounds that it's "classified."

Once more, with feeling - none of this stops being a horrible crime just because there is a tiny possibility that the U.S. President might be immune from prosecution. No judge is going to go along with this.

But first you have to have months of. "Something big is gonna happen!" Then all those wanting to go to jail will self choose and head for the ellipse.

That's a very different scenario than convincing actual military officers - in Seal Team 6 and above them all the way up the chain of command - to commit hardcore premeditated felonies. Not a bunch of idiots getting swept up in the moment.

Oh, I grant you that, but you can have an unsilly scenario, one where there's a short chain of command, and people wobbling on what they are being requested to do. Not every guard rail is going to hold up, but I think sufficient will. We'll have another vote, and this will go back and forth for some time. Let's just hope we don't have bad luck. I already think a sufficiently illegal request or order takes the action out of being an official act. We do have the example of disorganized Katzenjammer Kids out playing revolutionary, and some for real. The Governor in Michigan's kidnapping plotters. We've been lucky so far, plots foiled, nutters jailed, etc., but Trump is likely going to win. This is a bad hand to play out, but it's all we have.

Once more, with feeling - none of this stops being a horrible crime just because there is a tiny possibility that the U.S. President might be immune from prosecution. No judge is going to go along with this.

Strictly for argument’s sake…

I wouldn’t get this far. The President orders something which a reasonable jurist, person, somebody would say is illegal. People are told to do it because they will receive an automatic pardon once it’s done.

The President gives the pardon, then pardons himself at the same time with a total, broad pardon of the kind Nixon got.

Now there are no consequences, and no ability to do discovery as there is “no crime”, and everyone walks happily into the sunset singing “Fare thee well laddies” and whistling a happy tune. The President, presumably, is still subject to impeachment, but in today’s hyper-polarized world, and with a President in full control of his party (not the Nixon case at all), that would fail as well.

Tinfoil hat off.

And Trump is far to lazy to undertake anything like that.

Absolutely true.

Unfortunately, that’s not true about the obsequious people he places in positions of power.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.