One of the judges hearing the President Trump immunity argument asks: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival (and is) not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
And this was IMO an over-the-top question structured by the judge in order to provide an appeals escape hatch and path to the Supreme Court for them to come to an absolute interpretation and decision on the issue. And you know, make a political drama and shout out of it. A fist pump to her "peeps". Pure judicial Hollywood antics IMO.
And the former presidents lawyer argued that in order for a sitting president to be criminally prosecuted he would have to first be impeached by the Congress and then found guilty by the Senate. And that is how the Constitution structures the restraints on the president's power and how a president is removed for "bad acts", whatever that means, from power. A president is not an omnipotent King.
“If he were impeached and convicted first,” Trump lawyer John Sauer answered as the 77-year-old former president looked on."
Any president could conspire to have a rival or anyone else eliminated for whatever Subjective reason they thought appropriate. But that blatant act in the light of day would result in exactly what the former presidents lawyer proposed. An impeachment process in the Congress, and a trial and possibly a guilty judgement and a removal in the Senate. And the guilty judgement is not a certainty, because this is a political process. The president, any president occupies a special position in government. A president must have immunity.
Alan Dershowitz on immunity: https://youtu.be/0sjQi9NQdfA?si=HXdUuP8Xvi5-Jrzi
And then if found guilty in the Senate the president would be or could be criminally charged by the DOJ and prosecuted as a private citizen. But the presiding new president might well pardon the former president if they thought it is politically called for and in the best interests of the country. See: Gerald Ford regarding Richard Nixon.
The office of the president exists in the Political Realm structured by the Constitution and not in the Pedestrian Realm. If a president is to be criminally prosecuted, you first must remove them from the Political Realm and drag them back into the Pedestrian Realm. Make the distinction.
How are you going to feel when Joe Biden pardons himself, his son and any other family member or business associates who might be in legal jeopardy? You know, when the current president announces that he has decided to "retire from politics" in order to "spend more quality time with his *six grandchildren". Because that, or some permutation of that is exactly what is going to happen. You can mark this down right now and where you saw it stated. Joe and co. are unlikely to be the 2024 candidate for president, IMO anyway.
And it will not bother me one bit if he uses his pardon power. Do you know why? Because the office of the president, an expression of the peoples will and choice, exists in the Political Realm, and that office provides for special powers and considerations in order that they can perform their responsibilities without fear of repercussions. Why do you think a president needs lifetime Secret Service protection? Because there are those in the world who might disagree with that immunity and disagree with those life and death situations and decisions that a president must execute.
2 + 2 = 4, that is what the Constitution structures. The president, ANY president has a fiduciary responsibility for instance if they genuinely believe that an election let's say is spoiled through corruption and subversion. And it does not matter what anyone has to say about it. It is his or her fiduciary responsibility as the executive and their choices related to what should be done about it within the law and within what the Constitution structures that empowers them and or restricts them on the subject. And they have immunity in discharging those responsibilities.
Even if politics plays some roll in those decisions. A president, who has immunity while discharging the responsibilities of their office is also a political animal. And you cannot pick and choose when you tease out the one from the other.
*Democrats constantly and consistently claim that elections are rigged, stolen and illegitimate: https://youtu.be/OjnX4IUt_eo?si=N1UsX5QEqg86iNTh
There were and still are plenty of reasons to believe that things in the 2020 presidential election were not as on the up and up as they might have been. And the president at the time had reasonable doubts about the results. "But there were 60 judges who would not hear the presidents legal team arguments". Exactly, what low level judge would want to be in the cross hairs when they reviewed any evidence regarding a spoiled election? No low-level judge IMO has the stones to go there, they like their lives just as they are.
In the end this issue will be going to the Supreme Court, and that court will ultimately interpret what the Constitution says or does not say regarding a president's immunity while acting in his official capacity as the executive of the United States and the associated fiduciary responsibilities.
A president must have immunity, and if not, then that job could not be executed fully and in the broad expansive interests of the country and the people.
And besides, if a president wanted to remove his main political rival or anyone else from the scene for that matter that would be done in a more dark and clandestine manner utilizing arm's length operatives which would give them plenty of plausible deniability. And there would be potential political costs to such a move that might not make it worthwhile in the long run. Let us not be naive.
Politics is the dirtiest, filthiest most corrupt and deadliest game that human beings play. And that is the way it is no matter how offensive it might be to you personally.
Are you paying attention yet America? JGL 1/9/24
