Trump argues he can murder political opponents with immunity

[TexasTiger 12,922]

There’s ya Boi @iam4au and numerous others.

[AU9377 4,950]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

There’s ya Boi @iam4au and numerous others.

It really is a joke.  There is no way that presidential immunity attaches to these charges.  That would make the U.S. President the equivalent of a King.

[TexasTiger 12,922]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

It really is a joke.  There is no way that presidential immunity attaches to these charges.  That would make the U.S. President the equivalent of a King.

Kings that cause revolts.

[AU9377 4,950]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Kings that cause revolts.

I just wish that people would think about why we have never needed the courts to address these issues.  Never before has a President been committed to placing self above country.  Our system of government isn't built on the presumption that elected officials will be men of little character.

[TexasTiger 12,922]

15 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I just wish that people would think about why we have never needed the courts to address these issues.  Never before has a President been committed to placing self above country.  Our system of government isn't built on the presumption that elected officials will be men of little character.

They don’t care, even though he embodies all these qualities they’ve claimed to hate all their lives. It’s stuns me everyday that someone so over the top has such loyal sheep following him off a cliff.

[Leftfield 2,604]

Would certainly be news to Mitch McConnell:

McConnell argued that “impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice,” but suggested Trump could be subject to criminal prosecution in the future.

“We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one,” he said.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/mitch-mcconnell-acquit-trump/index.html

I wonder how many Republicans voted to acquit based on this same reasoning?

[DKW 86 7,425]

If you think trump actually meant he would kill anyone, YAASF.

My god people. Even trump knows that he cant kill a pol. It was a bad joke done in very bad taste by the worst candidate that we have ever had.

But it was still a ******* joke. Do you folks think that all this extraneous masturbation is in any way good for America? You sound just as ******* silly as the Q-Anons.

Next thing you will talking about pizza parlors and trump hitmen taking out DC Elites. MY GAWD GROW UP!

[TexasTiger 12,922]

5 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

If you think trump actually meant he would kill anyone, YAASF.

My god people. Even trump knows that he cant kill a pol. It was a bad joke done in very bad taste by the worst candidate that we have ever had.

But it was still a ******* joke. Do you folks think that all this extraneous masturbation is in any way good for America? You sound just as ******* silly as the Q-Anons.

Next thing you will talking about pizza parlors and trump hitmen taking out DC Elites. MY GAWD GROW UP!

You’re not tracking again.

[CoffeeTiger 5,111]

43 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

If you think trump actually meant he would kill anyone, YAASF.

My god people. Even trump knows that he cant kill a pol. It was a bad joke done in very bad taste by the worst candidate that we have ever had.

But it was still a ******* joke. Do you folks think that all this extraneous masturbation is in any way good for America? You sound just as ******* silly as the Q-Anons.

Next thing you will talking about pizza parlors and trump hitmen taking out DC Elites. MY GAWD GROW UP!

 

This isn't a joke Trump made. This is a story based on what Trumps lawyer said in court.

Trumps lawyers are arguing that a President of the United states is immune from criminal prosecution unless they are first successfully impeached by congress for those crimes. 

The judge asked Trumps lawyer if a President could order seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival? 

Trumps attorney responded that even in that case the president would have to be impeached before a criminal prosecution could be made. 

 

The implication being that, according to Trumps lawyer, that the president of the USA could assassinate a political rival legally if congress approved of it and did not impeach him for it. 

 

[aubiefifty 16,803]

i do not care if he was serious he needs to shut the hell up. one of you guys threaten someone on this board and see how quick you get the bann hammer.

[auburnatl1 4,940]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If you think trump actually meant he would kill anyone, YAASF.

My god people. Even trump knows that he cant kill a pol. It was a bad joke done in very bad taste by the worst candidate that we have ever had.

But it was still a ******* joke. Do you folks think that all this extraneous masturbation is in any way good for America? You sound just as ******* silly as the Q-Anons.

Next thing you will talking about pizza parlors and trump hitmen taking out DC Elites. MY GAWD GROW UP!

I’m not sure you read that it was about his lawyer, not Trump. But as a side note, if you do a search under “Trump threatens” - it’s literally epic. Thousands of quotes.. I get your point about overreacting, hysteria, trump haters, he’s just a smart a$$, ect. But playing that out - after the first, let’s say a hundred public threats, doesn’t it kinda start shifting from sarcastic, to repetitive, to maybe a little … warning sign nuts?  

Edited January 10 by auburnatl1

[TexasTiger 12,922]

1 minute ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’m not sure you read that it was about his lawyer, not Trump. But as a side note, if do a search under “Trump threatens” - it’s literally epic Thousands of quotes. . . I get your point about overreacting, hysteria, trump haters, he’s just a smart a$$,, ect. But playing that out - after the first, let’s say a hundred public threats, doesn’t it kinda start shifting from sarcastic, to repetitive, to maybe a little … warning sign nuts?  

Especially when he promises pardons and legal fees to those who do it? And, today’s story, sits by his attorney nodding as he makes this absurd argument?

[auburnatl1 4,940]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Especially when he promises pardons and legal fees to those who do it? And, today’s story, sits by his attorney nodding as he makes this absurd argument?

That darn Donald. He’s such a mischiveous prankster. 

[DKW 86 7,425]

7 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

This isn't a joke Trump made. This is a story based on what Trumps lawyer said in court.

Trumps lawyers are arguing that a President of the United states is immune from criminal prosecution unless they are first successfully impeached by congress for those crimes. 

The judge asked Trumps lawyer if a President could order seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival? 

Trumps attorney responded that even in that case the president would have to be impeached before a criminal prosecution could be made. 

 

The implication being that, according to Trumps lawyer, that the president of the USA could assassinate a political rival legally if congress approved of it and did not impeach him for it. 

 

Then show us the body.

The same folks telling trump WILL kill someone are the same people telling us that Epstein and his friends didn't do anything and that HB was paid $Ms by the Ukrainians and the Chinese to do hookers and crack...

[DKW 86 7,425]

4 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’m not sure you read that it was about his lawyer, not Trump. But as a side note, if you do a search under “Trump threatens” - it’s literally epic. Thousands of quotes.. I get your point about overreacting, hysteria, trump haters, he’s just a smart a$$, ect. But playing that out - after the first, let’s say a hundred public threats, doesn’t it kinda start shifting from sarcastic, to repetitive, to maybe a little … warning sign nuts?  

He has been ****** nutz for decades. That is the whole point. He has never killed anyone that we know of. Until we have a body, stfu. You people are as nutty as he is. You have tDS and you have all lost your ******* minds.

[TexasTiger 12,922]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

He has been ****** nutz for decades. That is the whole point. He has never killed anyone that we know of. Until we have a body, stfu. You people are as nutty as he is. You have tDS and you have all lost your ******* minds.

Feels like a bad comedy routine with these responses. As if Otis in Mayberry decided to work “blue.”

[Leftfield 2,604]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

He has been ****** nutz for decades. That is the whole point. He has never killed anyone that we know of. Until we have a body, stfu. You people are as nutty as he is. You have tDS and you have all lost your ******* minds.

I'm having trouble following your logic here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're saying that a former President's lawyer can argue, in court, that the President could use the military to kill someone and could not be prosecuted for it unless they're first impeached, and that's ok because it would never happen? And anyone against Trump who is pointing it out is ridiculous?

 

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

Is this a *slippery slope* argument posed by the judge?  If he were to order a hit by Seal Team 6; wouldn’t that come with approval from law makers?  I mean Trump could have done that during his first term (and a lot of TDS media types believe he just didn’t think of it)?  This is bordering on the absurd just for headlines.

Have Presidents killed civilians in an approved war and been held accountable?  Where is leading future Presidents in how they handle such things?  And I’m not talking about murdering political opponents.  Could a President be held accountable for allowing illegal immagration to get out of hand when he leaves office?

[TexasTiger 12,922]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is this a *slippery slope* argument posed by the judge?  If he were to order a hit by Seal Team 6; wouldn’t that come with approval from law makers?  I mean Trump could have done that during his first term (and a lot of TDS media types believe he just didn’t think of it)?  This is bordering on the absurd just for headlines.

Have Presidents killed civilians in an approved war and been held accountable?  Where is leading future Presidents in how they handle such things?  And I’m not talking about murdering political opponents.  Could a President be held accountable for allowing illegal immagration to get out of hand when he leaves office?

Knew you would defend it. Knew it.

[Leftfield 2,604]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is this a *slippery slope* argument posed by the judge?  If he were to order a hit by Seal Team 6; wouldn’t that come with approval from law makers?  I mean Trump could have done that during his first term (and a lot of TDS media types believe he just didn’t think of it)?  This is bordering on the absurd just for headlines.

I think the point the judge was making is that, if immunity exists, a President could do anything as long as they were able to convince 34 senators to not impeach. That's what Trump's lawyer argued. Nothing absurd about jumping on this - it doesn't take a huge leap to see that a President could feel free to do any number of illegal things without fear of repercussion. Certainly plenty of members of Congress have already shown willingness to turn a blind eye to such things. 

 

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Have Presidents killed civilians in an approved war and been held accountable? 

How is this in any way relatable to having a political opponent killed?

 

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Could a President be held accountable for allowing illegal immagration to get out of hand when he leaves office?

Do you have a side of Republican talking points with your Wheaties every morning?

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Knew you would defend it. Knew it.

So explaining a different view is defending it.  OK

[TexasTiger 12,922]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

So explaining a different view is defending it.  OK

If your different view places the President totally above the law, yes. Absolutely. And no way you’d have that view if a Democrat made that absurd argument.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

5 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I think the point the judge was making is that, if immunity exists, a President could do anything as long as they were able to convince 34 senators to not impeach.

Which is a ridiculous concept.  No President would think this and to project that on Trump is sick.  The judge asked a hypothetical that was out of the realm of possibility.  And of course the press ate it up.

8 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

How is this in any way relatable to having a political opponent killed?

I guess in you narrowly thought of this question as *get Trump* you couldn’t see how it is relatable.

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Do you have a side of Republican talking points with your Wheaties every morning?

No, do you jump on every *get Trump* item every morning?  I bet 2016 - present day has been glorious for you.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If your different view places the President totally above the law, yes. Absolutely. And no way you’d have that view if a Democrat made that absurd argument.

It doesn’t.  I didn’t say he is immune from anything, that is what this hearing is all about.  It was a hypothetical question brought up by the judge for this type of reaction.  You took the bait.

[CoffeeTiger 5,111]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

It doesn’t.  I didn’t say he is immune from anything, that is what this hearing is all about.  It was a hypothetical question brought up by the judge for this type of reaction.  You took the bait.

 

So blame the judge for the argument that Trumps own legal team is making...?