Ginni IS the law.
7 Likes
8 Likes
Oh. So then, Biden has immunity too?
12 Likes
Oh donāt be silly, it doesnāt work both ways!
10 Likes
That was basically what the prosecution was trying to spell out as a natural consquence of Trumpās arguments the last time this came up in court: that by his lawyersā logic, Biden could order Seal Team Six to assassinate Trump tomorrow and face no legal consquences for his actions whatsover.
12 Likes
If a sitting president can order execution of a former president, whatās to prevent a sitting president from ordering execution of the highest court of the land should said court oppose said sitting president?
I rather do hope the 4-ish variously-corrupted justices donāt lack the imagination enough to understand the broader implications of declaring that one person in the United States is not subject to the laws of the United States. 
12 Likes
It seems unlikely that even this court would find something convincing in Team Trumpās immunity argument but theyāre still doing him a big favor by letting him drag the process out instead of slapping it down immediately.
9 Likes
7 Likes
Thatās basically true, just because Democrats tend to still follow accepted norms of behavior, with a few exceptions (Iām looking at you, Bob Menendez). So, the argument from Trumpās attorneys in the appeals court was that a President couldnāt be prosecuted unless he was first impeached in the House and then convicted in the Senate for those crimes. So letās imagine for a moment what would happen if Biden ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate Trump. Would the House impeach Biden? The current one, yes, because it has a Republican majority, barely. But what if it didnāt? What if it had a Democratic majority? Do you think they would still vote to impeach Biden in this hypothetical? I think they would, because it would be the right thing to do. Do you then think a Democratic majority Senate would then convict Biden? Again, I think they would. Democrats are still mostly playing by the rules. Republicans arenāt. They had two chances to convict Trump in completely justified impeachment trials, and they didnāt both times. And this is the fundamental problem with Trumpās immunity argument: it relies on an inherently partisan, political process (impeachment) to hold a President, even a former President, accountable. There is no reasonable argument, that I can think of, that this is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. It places a single individual above the law, more important than any other citizen. The Supreme Court should not have taken this case, because there is absolutely no fucking way there is any reasonable argument that the Constitution allows this or that its framers intended that outcome. Itās too ridiculous to merit the Courtās attention. And yet here we are.
12 Likes
Ok, but what about indictments that happened after he was no longer president? Itās pointless to impeach a former president. So those prosecutions have to proceed. Second, many GOP senators acquitted him of the insurrection specifically because he was at the end of his term and would be dealt with in the conventional court system. They stated this publicly. So the argument fails that test as well for the insurrection-related charges.
10 Likes
But, but, Big Daddy Donny told them to take it. How could they refuse?!
Edit: According to HCR, a conservative judge agrees:
āThis is a momentous decision, just to hear this case,ā conservative judge Michael Luttig told Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC. āThere was no reason in this world for the Supreme Court to take this caseā¦. Under the constitutional laws of the United States, there has never been an argument that a former president is immune from prosecution for crimes that he committed while in office.ā
10 Likes
Hey, I agree with you. The argument for immunity is completely illogical. All Iām saying is that, if SCOTUS decides to buy it, it will only protect Republicans, because Democrats would still follow the rules and impeach a Democratic President who ordered a hit on his opponent, which, per this logic, would then open him up to prosecution. Itās crazy. Itās a crazy argument. As I said, itās too ridiculous to merit the Courtās consideration. But they are considering it. And even if they rule against him, it still delays the trial, soā¦
10 Likes
Yeah, everyone whoās taken Con Law agrees. This isnāt even close. Itās fucking insane that the Court is hearing this.
10 Likes
Also, as pointed out in the last trial where Trumpās lawyers made their āno criminal charges unless impeached and convicted by the Senate firstā theory, Biden could theoretically order the assassination in the last days of his Presidency when there wouldnāt be time for the impeachment process to play out. Or order the assassination and then resign before he was convicted by the Senate. In either case, according to Trumpās immunity theory there would be no way to hold Biden accountable for his crimes.
5 Likes
Sorry, I was expanding, not disagreeing. Iām with you.
7 Likes
You can impeach a former President. Trumpās second impeachment trial happened after Biden had taken office.
6 Likes
Huh? Biden was elected but hadnāt taken office. That wasnāt until the 20th, the trial ended on the 13th.
The trial in the Senate took place starting Jan 25th, so after Biden took office.
4 Likes
Trump was impeached by the House on January 13, while he was still in office. The trial in the Senate began on February 9 and ended on the 13th, after Biden took office. Regardless, thereās nothing in the Constitution preventing the impeachment of a former President. All it says is that when a President is impeached, the Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate. And while Chief Justice Roberts did preside over Trumpās first impeachment trial, he didnāt over the second, precisely because Trump was no longer President. But they can technically impeach anyone. They could impeach me. An impeachment could theoretically be used to prevent someone who hadnāt held office before, but who participated in an insurrection, from running for office. Thatās important because Section 3 of the 14th Amendment only applies to people who have previously taken an oath of office. For example, thereās nothing preventing Enrique Tarrio from running for President.
8 Likes
Plus, it was a convenient way to dodge having to give real answers to the question of how they could possibly not understand Agent Orangeās role in the whole kerfluffle.
3 Likes
