Trump lawyer tells appeals court president can murder political rivals without being prosecuted — unless impeached and convicted by Senate
lawandcrime.com
The stark question was posed to Trump’s attorney John Sauer by Judge Florence Pan: Was a president immune from prosecution for any unlawful act, at all? Could a president order his political rivals to be assassinated by Seal Team 6 as an official act? Could he sell pardons at his pleasure if he saw fit and then face no consequences for his actions?
“He would have to be impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied,
You are viewing a single comment
How on EARTH did the judge miss his chance to ask the obvious follow-up.
"Does this apply to Biden also? Can he murder his political rivals under your legal theory? Can he murder your client?"
"Why not?"
The judge definitely called out Trump's lawyer tho
Logic doesn't work with trumpets tho, they just say whatever happens to help them the most in the moment.
Here pretty soon they'll start saying it's too close to the election, so this has to be postponed.
If he wins, they'll say it has to wait till after, then they'll start over in the beginning.
trumps lawyers are just going to stall as long as they can.
Whoa, hey, trumpets are cool. Don't despoil them like that!
Trumpanzies?
still unfair to the intellectual and emotional capabilities of chimps
Trumpsters
"That depends. Are you going to force his estate to pay the rest of my legal bills? If so, then yes. If not, then no."
Jokes on him. He ain't getting paid regardless.
At this point, if you're working for Trump for anything less than cash in advance, then you're a fucking idiot and you deserve to get screwed later.
Well the real answer is because this isn't about Biden and bringing a whataboutism into court would be incredibly unprofessional of a judge. That's something one of Trump's idiot appointees would say and we would all be wondering how the case isn't being thrown out for unprofessional commentary
Whataboutism is shifting focus away from something person A did, by bringing some action by person B into it when it doesn't belong.
Asking how a legal theory would apply in some other context, to highlight the absurdity of what the lawyer is saying because the answer would be absurd, is a very different thing.
I can see maybe saying it without the word "Biden" but focusing it on Trump would be better, yeah. E.g. asking if some other president would be allowed to murder his political rivals (specifically including Trump), without opening to door to complications. Obviously the answer is that Trump thinks he should have a special set of rules that don't apply to anyone else, but the closer you can get to forcing his lawyer to explain out loud that that's what they're asking for seems like it'd be a good thing.
Well the real real answer is the judge actually asked something in that same vein.
It's not a whataboutism when you're questioning the legal precedent a certain ruling would set.
Whataboutism: when you ask if your assertion of rights also applies to other people.
Whataboutism is Russian propaganda. These are legal arguments.
I saw it more as pointing out how the claim fails by Proof of Contradiction