Not The Onion

12416 readers

1583 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

630

Trump Attorney Tells Judges Presidential Immunity Would Even Cover Assassinating Rivals, Selling Pardons (themessenger.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

91 comments fedilink hide all child comments

U.S. presidents cannot be prosecuted for selling pardons or assassinating political rivals through SEAL Team Six, personal Trump lawyer John Sauer argued Tuesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 50 points 10 months ago (3 children)

U.S. presidents cannot be prosecuted for selling pardons or assassinating political rivals through SEAL Team Six

If that's true, we should do something about it.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"Unless they’re impeached and convicted by the Senate."

Bc they know even Dems would convict Joe for murder but they would never do it to one of their own.

GOP is going to coup the shit out of us in the near future.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

the point they’re trying to make here is that, because Trump was acquitted by the Senate, this prosecution would amount to double jeopardy.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They made that case because he wasn’t convicted. As a lawyer, you play as many cards as you have. They know it's bs, we know it, and the judges know it too.

I’m saying that if the argument worked, hypothetically, they would use it as bitch cudgel and a shield.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

oh, sure. I’m not sayin their argument is valid, just why they made it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Didn't the Republicans argue to acquit because "the courts should decide"?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If I recall correctly, this would be an illegal order in violation of the Title 10 authorities which govern DoD activities if it took place within the borders of the country. I'm not a federal lawyer so I don't know the details, but I believe it prohibits the armed forces operating under Title 10 from performing operations on U.S. soil. Title 18 however governs agencies like the FBI and allows operations within U.S. borders but prohibits foreign operations.

This is all a vague memory from an old lesson, but at first glance the attorney's argument is utter crap. It boils down to "no act of the president can be considered in violation of any law." Not a comforting sentiment, and a dangerous precedent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

The CIA and or the NSA would do it in a heartbeat.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

Let them assassinate Trump, that is?