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,

152 points
*

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?”

permalink
report
reply
54 points

The judge definitely called out Trump’s lawyer tho

Judge Henderson cited this specifically on Tuesday when hearing arguments from Sauer.

Trump, she told him, said he couldn’t be prosecuted while he was in office, but he also conceded that he could be prosecuted once he was out.

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Whoa, hey, trumpets are cool. Don’t despoil them like that!

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Trumpanzies?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The blow

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

“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.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Jokes on him. He ain’t getting paid regardless.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-22 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
58 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Well the real real answer is the judge actually asked something in that same vein.

Could a president order his political rivals to be assassinated by Seal Team 6 as an official act?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

It’s not a whataboutism when you’re questioning the legal precedent a certain ruling would set.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Whataboutism: when you ask if your assertion of rights also applies to other people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Whataboutism is Russian propaganda. These are legal arguments.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I saw it more as pointing out how the claim fails by Proof of Contradiction

permalink
report
parent
reply
67 points
*

Oh wow, what a big fucking surprise. Trump’s team is now arguing he can’t be charged because he wasn’t impeached. Yet 4 years ago, the cowards in the GOP said they couldn’t impeach him and it was up to the courts to take responsibility for punishing Trump.

Who could have guessed that these slimy fucks would do that? Everyone?

permalink
report
reply
6 points
*

Also, if the court sides with Trump, and he gets impeached again, the GOP will use the exact same excuse and ignore this ruling entirely and not convict.

permalink
report
parent
reply
48 points
*

Taken to it’s logical conclusion, this idea would basically posit that all the president must do to become a dictator is take out the whole Senate at once, or just have absolute loyalists in enough of the seats, or a combination of the two. If there’s no Senate, the president can’t be impeached and convicted, and if the president cant be held accountable for anything unless that happens, then they can illegally stop any new elections to get new senators with no consequences (or a new president for that matter) and act with impunity.

permalink
report
reply
36 points

Taken to it’s logical conclusion, this idea would basically posit that all the president must do to become a dictator is take out the whole Senate at once, or just have absolute loyalists in enough of the seats, or a combination of the two

Didn’t they sorta try that 3 years ago? Shouldn’t that be a huge red flag for this argment?

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

They have a much more rigorous plan for this now. The following is a link to the published 970 page manual on how the GOP intends to take permanent control of the US.

https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

The 2025 Presidential Transition Project is the conservative movement’s unified effort to be ready for the next conservative Administration to govern at 12:00 noon, January 20, 2025. Welcome to the mission. By opening this book, you are now a part of it

Fuck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

What in the fuck Is this? This may as well be The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 2.0

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

wtf

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Didn’t they sorta try that 3 years ago?

No, they tried to take out the House of Representatives. It’s clearly a totally different thing. \s

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Murders all the way down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points
*

Hmm sounds like the whole “balance of power in the 3 branches of government” is being completely ignored by this dumb lawyer.

The executive branch must be held accountable by more than just the Senate… Otherwise there might as well only be 2 branches of power and the justice system would fall under the umbrella of the executive branch.

permalink
report
reply
12 points
*

It’s also being ignored by SCOTUS, so… Doesn’t seem the government cares about corruption what so ever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Then go on Biden. Do your thing Mr. King.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 470K

    Comments