this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
588 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2337 users here now

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive’s broad immunity to criminal prosecution.

The hypothetical was presented to Trump attorney John Sauer who answered with a “qualified yes” that a former president would be immune from prosecution on that matter or even on selling pardons.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 62 points 10 months ago (2 children)

They are also praying to their god that the Appellate Court has no knowledge of the "color of office" argument. Assassinations of US citizens is most definitely beyond the scope of presidential duties, and to accept otherwise is to accept that the president is a king.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I agree completely... that said, not to be that guy, but didn't Obama drone strike one or two American citizens while in power?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He killed four. Three were accidental, one was a literal terrorist helping to plan attacks on American targets. None were on American soil.

I'm undecided if the terrorist one deserves the rights awarded by the fifth amendment, but as for the other three, it's not like he went out of his way to target them.

Trump's lawyers, on the other hand, are essentially arguing that the president can do what he wants to whomever he wants, even on American soil. It's like it's straight from Putin's mouth.

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

I mean it probably is from Putin’s mouth, only via Trump.

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

Drone strike on your position, oops did I say that out loud?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

To add, would selling pardons not be covered under the emoluments clause, at the very least?

Even though it wasn’t even remotely enforced.