@roberttsai before the arrival of Trump on the political scene, this headline would have belonged in a dystopian novel. The sad truth is the shock value which it should hold (for it describes the epitome of a fascist regime) has been drained by years of Trump’s constant batshit verbal utterings.
How does the US protect itself from a rogue ex-President seeking re-election? Are we witnessing the constitutional cogs whirring into protective action? If not, then how? The stakes cannot be ignored.
@roberttsai I listened to the hearing and context is important because the headline is a bit misguided. Their main argument is that the guy holding offce of President cannot be prosecuted after he leaves office for acts doen while in office unless House/Senate have impeached and convicted him first. hence he can kill opponent if he has majority and senate refuses to convict him (as happened after jan 6).
Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, tried to convince the judges that unless a president has been convicted by the Senate in a formal impeachment vote, he cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions he took while in office.
The judges appeared skeptical of this line of reasoning.
“You’re saying a president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” with impunity, said Judge Florence Pan, who was appointed by President Joe Biden.
@tdwllms1@pkboi #this
It’s such obvious bullshit.
Can you imagine being the appeals attorney reduced to making this argument? You spent decades in school, training, practicing, earning the right to argue before an appeals court, and that’s what you’ve got?
Or his other one about how courts don’t sit in judgment of presidents yet in the next breath that same decision notes presidents can be criminally prosecuted?
Im embarrassed for him and I don’t even know him.
@roberttsai There is a fair value to the argument as the Senate is best placed to determine if the person who did a bad thing did so as President (eg: ordering drone strike against terrorist) or as individual (ordering drone strike against his political opponent). t is not challenged that as President doing stuff in the name of the nation is immune from prosecution.
@jfmezei You must have missed both of Trump's impeachments then. The Republican Senate didn't vote against conviction because the impeachment case wasn't proved but because they were protecting their own. They are not disinterested parties, they're partisans.
@Axomamma And in both cases, the democratically elected government (senate) did not find him guilty, so like OJ Simpson, Trump got off free.
There is a point though about having the government decide whether a President's action is part of his job or whether it was a personal deed not part of his job since the senate is better equyipped to make that decision than some prosecutor in an office. Though as you point out, loyalty to the president means Senate unable to convict.
The Senate is not better equipped to make that decision, because the Senate is not an impartial body. As was demonstrated twice just three years ago.
There is no instance in which "some prosecutor in an office" makes a decision about whether a president's action is part of his job. If it was, this COURT HEARING would not have taken place.
@Axomamma When Trump issued an illegal executive order to ban Muslims, it wasn't Donald J Trump who went to court, but the President of the united states and the court voided the executive order. Donald J Trump not personally liable.
But in this case, Trump organised an insurection and someone has to decide whether this was an act done by the President on behalf of the government or whether it was individual candidate Donald J Trump organising it to steal an election.
@mkoek@Axomamma the courts have to look at whether constitutionally the senate is the official judge of a president’s actions or whether normal courts can also deal with prosecutions against the individual. That the senate failed to find trump guilty is no different than a court finding OJ Simpson not guilty.
@mkoek@Axomamma the big picture question is whether Donald j trump organized an insurrection or whether the US Government organized it. (With Trump as head of government)
@Axomamma The court isn't looking at Trump. It is looking at whether a generic president is absolute immunity (as individual) because all his actiosn are on behalf of government or whether he cane be prosecuted for actions done while he is President and if so, can one codify what actions can and can't be prosecuted. Hopefully the outcome is such that Trump's actions fit in the "done as individual" category and prosecutions can continue.
@Axomamma You'll note that the USA refuses the ICC jurisdiction. But ICC has charged individuals for actions they did as heads of state ( consider Milosovic for the Kosovo/Serbian atrocities he committed).
Because Trump has a TV show circus around the whole saga for his ratings, many seems to be blind to actual serious arguments that his show force judges to consider. This is a precedent setting decision because USA never had a Ferengi mobster criminal as President.
And if the President's illegal act was to arrest or kill all the people in the Senate who might vote to impeach him? (Ref. Pride's Purge)
Also, the Senate can also only impeach a sitting President, so if a President did something illegal in his last day of office, or the illegal act only came to light after he'd left office, there would be no way to prosecute him for it.
@skjeggtroll@jfmezei@roberttsai
What if the president commits an illegal act, then pardons himself? Would you agree that he'd be free from criminal prosecution? Congress could still punish him through impeachment though.
That's what just happened yesterday regarding the Texas Heartbeat Bill. All six Republican Justices sat out, leaving the three Democrat appointed Justices unable to take the case.
I'm not 100% sure, just that it goes to the lower courts ruling without comment.
So, like in Colorado Maine and Iowa, that might mean he's off the ballot. But it could also mean they won't take the case for Texas kicking Biden off the ballot.
The Appeals court ruled that MacTruong, the plaintiff against Abbott and others, including five of the US Supreme Court Justices, "failed to raise a non frivolous argument" and denied and dismissed the claims.
Essentially, the SCOTUS recusal means that the Heartbeat Act stays in effect, and abortions are effectively illegal in Texas.
Add comment