Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Donald Trump

How To Get Away With Murder (According to Trump's Lawyers)

Step 1: Become president. That's the hardest part.

Eric Boehm | 1.12.2024 1:00 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Donald Trump immunity impeachment trial | Michael M. Santiago/UPI/Newscom
(Michael M. Santiago/UPI/Newscom)

Federal courts have not yet resolved the important question of whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from being prosecuted for his role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

But the legal battle has incidentally revealed something else: How to get away with murder—at least according to Trump's lawyers.

As Reason's Jacob Sullum detailed earlier this week, one of the more alarming moments during the hearing over Trump's immunity claim occurred when Judge Florence Pan asked whether a president could be "subject to criminal prosecution" if he'd ordered the assassination of a political rival. "According to Trump's lawyers, a former president can be prosecuted for 'official acts,'" Sullum explains, "only if he is first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate based on the same underlying conduct."

Trump was, of course, impeached by the House for his role in trying to overturn the election, but he was not convicted by the Senate.

But if a president ordered the assassination of a political rival, surely he or she would be impeached and convicted, right?

Not necessarily—at least according to Trump's legal team.

As Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson pointed out on X (formerly Twitter) this week: Recall that during Trump's second impeachment trial, part of the former president's defense was the claim that he literally couldn't be impeached because he was no longer president—even though the underlying, potentially impeachable conduct occurred while he was in office.

Thankfully, the federal judges hearing Trump's immunity claim seemed to be pretty skeptical of the idea that a president is immune from prosecution without having been previously convicted by the Senate. But let's assume they end up buying that bit of convoluted reasoning. The result would be a wild legal loophole that could allow anyone—yes even you—to get away with murder.

Here's how to do it.

First, become president. This is almost certainly the most difficult step in the process.

Second, order the assassination of your political rivals—or annoying neighbors, anyone who has ever wronged you, Mike Pence, random people in the middle of 5th Avenue, and so on. This legal paradox means there are effectively no limits on how much murdering you do, and the crimes don't even have to be done secretly. You can tell the whole world that you, the current president of the United States, ordered a bunch of assassinations.

(And keep in mind: there are more than 200,000 armed federal agents under your command. Many would likely object, but surely you'd be able to find a few who are willing to just follow orders.)

Third, and here's the key part: Immediately resign from the presidency.

You'll likely be arrested and arraigned on a wide variety of charges carrying the possibility of many, many years in prison. Ah, but have you been impeached by Congress for this conduct? Nope, and that means (according to Trump's legal team) that you can't be convicted.

And you're no longer president! Therefore, according to Trump's legal team, you can't be hauled in front of Congress to be impeached and convicted so you can later face criminal charges. Congratulations, you've gotten away with murder.

It's almost as if it's a bad idea to grant immunity to someone solely on the basis that their potentially criminal conduct occurred while they were acting in an official capacity.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Wonka Fights the Candy Cronies

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

Donald TrumpAssassinationPoliticsFederal CourtsImpeachmentimmunityQualified ImmunityExecutive PowerLaw & GovernmentCourts
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (311)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   1 year ago

    GFY Boehm, Trumps lawyers said nothing of the sort.

    Although Obama and (allegedly) the Clintons have indeed gotten away with it

    1. Minadin   1 year ago

      The only one I can think of that would be covered by this legal 'theory' that Boehm's misrepresenting here is that one US citizen that got drone-strike ended under Obama's watch. Because that action was at least arguably part of his 'duties as a sitting president'.

      1. Sometimes a Great Notion   1 year ago

        Also killed by Obama was the 14 year old son of the target. And then Trump killed his 8 year daughter in the Yakla raid.

        1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

          And then Trump killed his 8 year daughter in the Yakla raid.

          You're not supposed to say that part.

          1. Sevo   1 year ago

            turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
            If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
            turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

            1. TylorFaith   1 year ago (edited)

              Read the following report to learn how a single-mom with 3 kids was able to generate $89,844 of annual income working in her spare time online from her home without selling...
              For More Visit Here....> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com

          2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

            I’m sure you were quite upset over that one. It subtracts from your victim pool.

          3. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Nor supposed to mention it was planned by Obama and executed 9 days into Trumps first term while still establishing his administration.

            1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

              You think he's not responsible, because he was "still learning the ropes"?

              1. Sevo   1 year ago

                You, as an ignoramus, assume he was responsible since in 8 days, he was to become familiar with every detail included in the job, right?
                Lemme guess: The most complicated job you ever held was mopping floors and emptying the garbage.

                1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                  Jesus Christ, who the fuck was responsible for launching the attack, then? The attack had been planned under Obama--but never implemented. Obama declined. Trump waltzed in, sat his fat ass in the Oval Office chair and gave the order. His order was followed.

                  "Shit happens"?

              2. Minadin   1 year ago

                Little of column 'A', Little of column 'B'. He was in charge at the time, so . . .

      2. Fkthepostoffice   1 year ago

        ^

        1. MarianneMTenorio   1 year ago (edited)

          I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com

      3. charliehall   1 year ago

        George Washington set the precedent. A few of the insurrectionists died when he led the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion. Had he not done that, the US government would have been a joke; anyone with a gun could simply refuse to obey the law. Of course a lot of folks here would have sided with the insurrectionists.

        Abraham Lincoln continued the precedent. Hundreds of thousands of insurrectionists fought and died for the Confederate States of America after they started a civil war to preserve slavery.

        You only get due process when you surrender.

      4. B G   1 year ago

        Obama did have a White House Counsel lawyer put together a memo asserting that the President has the authority to order the killing of a US Citizen without any indictment, trial, or criminal charge if the President determines that person to present a some level of danger to the US or US interests. Except in the magnitude of the action allowed, there wasn't all that much difference between that memo and the one that "W" had issued claiming that AQ fighters could be tortured since their organization wasn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, or even a sovereign government; the other notable difference is that the left went ripshit over the "torture memo" including calling for impeachment and criminal charges against the lawyer who wrote it, whereas they couldn't be bothered to acknowledge the existence of Obama's "assassination memo" except as an excuse to not get agitated over Obama having already ordered the killing of at least one US Citizen without due process.

        Rand Paul staged a 26 hour for-real talking filibuster on the Senate floor as a protest against this memo, but the MSM mostly just covered it as if the libertarian whackadoodle was just barking at the wind again for no real reason. Eventually the Obama administration backed down to a "compromise" stating that the authority to order assasination of citizens was only available to the President if the President deemed it necessary.

        Under a deep-TDS interpretation of the Obama memo, most f the Dems I know would probably buy in to the idea that trump constitutes enough of a "threat" that Biden would be justified in ordering a drone strike on Mar-a-lago. Of course, those people also largely believe that the "pee tape" exists, that trump told people to "literally drink bleach" (just don't ask them why none of the tens of millions of "deep maga terrorists" who do little more than await their next instructions from trump actually drank bleach).

    2. middlefinger   1 year ago

      Taibbis stack is on, in real time, to this Pravda shit…

      https://www.racket.news/p/more-lunatic-legal-coverage

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        I just read this.

        Can we have any doubt now that establishment media, and those who want to suck on that dick/teat like Boehm, are just government tools?

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          As long as the narrative building works on some self identified "libertarians" like sarc, jeff, and shrike.... reason will continue to push it to help Neocon Nikki. Anyone else shocked they didn't include Rand Paul's statements this morning?

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

            Reason: Rand who?

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              Oh they know who he is. A RACIST, THATS WHO!

          2. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

            The other day I told you I prefer “classical liberal” because the word “libertarian” has become stigmatized.

            I assume that means you’ll continue to say I claim to be a libertarian because you’re allergic to honesty. If you said the truth about something you’d break out in hives. If your nose grew when you lied it would be poking Mars. I don't mean your boy Bruno.

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              Nobody cares what you prefer.

          3. middlefinger   1 year ago (edited)

            They also promoted opposition to eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines as“NIMBYISM”. The farmers do not want the RISK of a leak on their property. Ramaswammy is on that story and will use his personal wealth to fight for private property rights from the green new socialists after the election.

            1. R Mac   1 year ago

              The lack of coverage of Vivek is noteworthy.

              1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago (edited)

                He’s the Indian face of white supremisty

                Edit
                Upon further review, with Larry elder, vivek, the gay Mexican from proud boys, is there a more diverse group than whit supremist?

                1. R Mac   1 year ago

                  It’s almost like the people calling this white supremacy are psychopathic liars.

                  1. Minadin   1 year ago

                    Well, 'racist' wasn't carrying the same cache anymore, being as obviously overused as it was, so they had to kick it up a notch.

            2. charliehall   1 year ago

              Eminent domain has been used for pipelines since, well, pipelines were invented.

      2. Outlaw Josey Wales   1 year ago

        Maybe just setting the stage for another regime in the future?

      3. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Sarc will never read this. Ever. He prefers the narrative Matt criticizes.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Plus, Matt is a traitor to the cause.

      4. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

        The original article explained exactly what was said, and by whom. If you're still puzzled by Trump's lawyer's responses, I can't help you.

        He obviously tried very hard not to agree with the judge's extrapolation, but the logic of his argument left him no room to manoeuvre.

  2. Quo Usque Tandem   1 year ago

    "Judge Florence Pan asked whether a president could be "subject to criminal prosecution" if he'd ordered the assassination of a political rival. "

    Next non relevant question: What if God and Superman got into a fight?

    1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      I think it's a fair question, when going into novel legal ground, to explore the absurd reaches of the implication. The problem is how people react to an uncomfortable answer. If you believe impeachment is a necessary precedent to criminal prosecution for the President, when it comes to official acts, then this is obvious.

      This presumes an absurd scenario, though, in which the President is able to convince the military to take out his political rivals. If that's the case, if the military is willing to follow those orders, who the hell is going to arrest him? You think suddenly he's going to be stopped when some White Knight DA charges him with murder, and then suddenly the President is powerless?

      A criminal procedure is not going to remedy what is entirely a political problem.

      1. Quo Usque Tandem   1 year ago

        Thoughtful reply, thank you.

        And you are right, if such things were to occur, we would be well beyond jurisprudence at that point, and the Constitution would be a quaint artifact for a collector of paper archives.

      2. Sevo   1 year ago

        "I think it’s a fair question, when going into novel legal ground, to explore the absurd reaches of the implication..."

        That might be true, IF the action with which he's charged had any reasonable possibility of happening.
        By what mechanism could Trump had any real possibility of "overturning the election"?

        1. BigT   1 year ago

          Some people think peacefully protesting is the same as overturning an election.

          That’s why insurrections have been happening and prosecuted every 4 years since 2000.

      3. JesseAz   1 year ago

        The question is fine if searching for a limiting factor. It is not fine to disqualify actual legal acts such as executive involvement in elections.

        1. Fkthepostoffice   1 year ago

          Another solid point

      4. Rockstevo   1 year ago

        Not to mention Seal Team 6 is required to obey all "Legal" orders and obligated to disobey any illegal orders. To assassinate a political rival would definitely be in the "Illegal order" camp and therefore would not be an official act.

        1. charliehall   1 year ago

          Trump's legal doctrine is that anything a President does is legal. Hence Seal Team 6 has to obey. Or he can order them to be killed, too.

      5. Fkthepostoffice   1 year ago

        100000% this

      6. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

        This is a variation of the "the 2nd Amendment is meaningless, because you couldn't defeat the US Army with your AR-15" argument.

        Yes, in an environment in which the President could order the assassination of a political rival--and have that order carried out--pretty much all has already been lost. But that is not an argument in favor of making such conduct 100% legal. Making it 100% illegal might just be the necessary difference to keep it from happening in the first place.

        1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

          It wouldn't be 100% legal. It would just require overcoming the political barrier of getting him impeached before the prosecution could proceed. We all agree this would be an illegal thing, but the question is whether there are proceedural and political hurdles to follow first.

      7. Fetterman's Hump   1 year ago

        When I was in the army, decades ago, we were taught that it was our duty to disobey an illegal order. Murdering a political rival is a clearly illegal order.

        That puts the average E-4 in a difficult position, some would carry out the order and some would not. Those who did not would face the wrath of the UCMJ and would only be exonerated if the political system in the US returned to constitutional principles. I used to think that the subversion of our constitution was unthinkable, but the last 20 years or so experience has left me with much less confidence.

      8. B G   1 year ago

        Time was, it seemed far-fetched that a sitting president would publicly call the supporters of his opponent "domestic terrorists". Going farther back, there was a time when it seemed far-fetched that one party would refer to the opposition candidate as "an existential threat" to the country (might have to go back 40+ years for that one at this point).

        In a government where the authority to order the extrajudicial killing of a US citizen is held by the office, wouldn't it be a dereliction to not use that power to rid the country of an "existential threat" backed by a gang of "domestic terrorists"? With a president who was a half-wit at his prime and now seems to be well into the progression of some form of dementia, it's a wonder that someone on Biden's staff hasn't already convinced him to order the CIA to at least plan the op (if they hadn't already, considering the pre-existing friction between trump and the intel community).

        For an assassination, it only takes one operator to buy in. Could be done through the CIA using a PMC, in which case they'd likely go with a foreign trigger-man for an additional layer of deniability. Or else run the old KGB playbook and have the actual assassin killed by someone else before the bigger picture could be exposed. There's no shortage of people who believe that's already been done at least once to a sitting POTUS (and they might not be wrong), taking down an opposition candidate seems like a step down in difficulty from that point.

    2. Moonrocks   1 year ago

      The question is perfectly relevant. The current regime is blatantly using its power to attack political rivals and Obama set the precedent of publicly assassinating American citizens. Considering that, it's not farfetched to imagine that a president would order the assassination of political rivals in the future.

    3. Super Scary   1 year ago

      Superman Prime could probably put up a fair fight.

    4. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

      God could just make green Kryptonite appear and kill Superman.

    5. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      Mike ditka would win

    6. charliehall   1 year ago

      Given that Trump has identified some of his opponents as worthy of death it is a completely fair question.

  3. Chumby   1 year ago

    The Craplantic wing of Reason has spoken.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      ReasoNBC?

    2. SQRLSY One   1 year ago

      The Meeting of the Right Rightist Minds will now come to Odor!

      Years ago by now, Our Dear Leader announced to us, that He may commit murder in broad daylight, and we shall still support Him! So He Has Commanded, and So Must Shit be Done!

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/donald-trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-still-not-lose-voters

      And now, oh ye Faithful of the Republican Church, Shit Has Become Known Unto us, that Shit is also in His Power and Privilege Ass Well, to murder the USA Constitution in broad daylight. Thus He Has Spoken, and Thus Must Shit Be Done! Thou shalt Render Unto Trump, and simply REND the USA Constitution, and wipe thine wise asses with shit! Do NOT render unto some moldering old scrap of bathroom tissue! Lest we be called fools, or worse!

      https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/03/politics/trump-constitution-truth-social/index.html

      Proud Boys, STAND with TRUMP, and stand by! And if ye don’t agree 110%, then we don’t need you polluting our world, because all who disagree with us in ANY way are LEFTISTS!!!

      There, I think that’s a wrap! I’ve covered shit ALL! You can take the rest of the day off now.

      (You’re welcome!)

      1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

        Fuck off, Shill. Your party is evil.

    3. Obviously   1 year ago

      Thank god we have someone like you to post this essentially identical comment every time reason posts anything that doesn’t hail trump as the second coming.

    4. Fetterman's Hump   1 year ago

      Reason on the Crimea.

  4. Dillinger   1 year ago

    queue Sinatra.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Why does Frank have to stand in line? (sorry)

  5. Moderation4ever   1 year ago

    The post WWII trials of Nazi and Japanese leaders established that you cannot avoid guilt by pleading that you were just following orders. So, while the President who ordered murders is not criminally liable, the military personnel involved would be subject to criminal prosecution.

    1. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

      But not capital police officers.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        They are heros. Don't make me tap their medals.

        1. charliehall   1 year ago

          The Trumpies denigrate American heroes and exalt the enemies of the United States

    2. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      Hypothetically he could just offer pardons, I guess. But you're right, the duty of officers in the military is to disobey unlawful orders.

      1. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

        Tell that to bradley manning

      2. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

        It’s (D)ifferent when Biden is occupying the White House.

      3. B G   1 year ago

        If the Commander in Chief declares someone to be an "existential threat to the republic", wouldn't any member of the military be duty bound by their oath to "defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic" to take an order to kill such a person as completely lawful?

        If not, wouldn't the people in the administration around that CinC be duty bound under the same oath to remove such a President from office?

  6. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

    So let's look at the hypothetical posed.

    A president orders Seal Team 6 to assassinate their chief political rival. Does Seal Team 6 just obey this order? They have a lawful duty under UCMJ to disobey unlawful orders. The military is not a button you just push and they automatically obey.

    But, let's presume, like in the case of Anwar al-Awlawki, the President is able to conjure some legal framework which allows him to convince people to follow that order. Then he resigns. So what was the purpose, then, in killing his chief political rival? Clearly not to maintain power. Perhaps you can say he's just setting things up for his VP.

    There's nothing textual that says impeachment only applies to people presently holding office. It's a fair reading, since part of the judgment in impeachment is that it prevents the convicted person from ever holding office again, that it's not required for the subject of impeachment to be an office holder. It's going to be a question for the Supreme Court to answer.

    But, if you assume that somehow the President doesn't get impeached, where does that leave us? If the President is able to order murders of his political rivals and his party refuses to indict him, we're in civil war. You can't rely on criminal statutes to remedy that state, the only thing that would prevent that war would be a political response. The political response is Impeachment and condemnation by his own political allies.

    The reason you don't assassinate a chief political rival is because that guy is popular. He has supporters. If you order him killed, it's going to have a bunch of people worried that they'll be next. You'd have people taking shots at the former President, the new President, and at every Senator who voted against impeachment. You'd have actual war.

    When this absurd hypothetical gets proposed, people have to realize just what kind of conditions we'd be living in that would allow the absurdity to take place. If the President's chief political rival is basically Osama Bin Laden charging toward a nuke he's planning to detonate in New York City, then yeah, he should order the marines to kill him. But if it's just someone he really dislikes, he's not going to get a ton of traction when he gives that order.

    1. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

      It’s going to be a question for the Supreme Court to answer.

      Court stacked 6-3. Future vacancies filled with Federalist Society lackeys. Problem solved.

      1. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

        Thank god, a 9-0 court full of originalists would be a godsend for this country.

      2. Sevo   1 year ago

        turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
        turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.

      3. Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo   1 year ago

        Good. The next step will be to purge this country of global Marxist Soros lapdog pedophiles. Pedophiles like you.

        1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

          The day Soros dies I'm going to drink Plug's fascist tears by the bucketful.

          1. Jefferson Paul   1 year ago

            I would stay away from any of Pluggo's bodily fluids, but that's just me.

      4. Its_Not_Inevitable   1 year ago

        George Soros should staff the court, amiright?

    2. Zeb   1 year ago

      Yes, well stated. Neither the constitution nor criminal law can stop a civil war. If something like the hypothetical posed by the judge actually happened, no criminal charges after the president leaves is going to repair the situation.
      And even with things as polarized as they are, I can't imagine that a president who started murdering people would not be impeached and removed and tried criminally. The recent impeachment votes were almost entirely partisan because the impeachments were entirely partisan and political.

    3. BYODB   1 year ago (edited)

      The reason you don’t assassinate a chief political rival is because that guy is popular. He has supporters. If you order him killed, it’s going to have a bunch of people worried that they’ll be next.

      I like that you bring this issue up, since it’s notably one reading of what is happening to Trump in particular. Sure, the left hates him and so do plenty of people on the right but that ignores that he actually does have a lot of supporters.

      Simply villifying him and using novel legal constructions to go after him has his supporters concerned, perhaps rightfully or perhaps wrongly, that they could be next.

      This is not a road we need to go down. Especially for what amounts to a fairly standard 4 years in office (outside the impeachment theatrics) that didn’t really move any needles in any direction in particular.

      If the lefts goal was to create a martyr out of nothing, I’m not sure what they would do differently.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

        That's my problem with this screed. What if a sitting president weaponized the entire executive branch to prosecute and imprison his primary political rival and that rival's supporters. Could that president be criminally charged after leaving office? Could he claim those were official acts? In order to buy the Bohem/Sullum argument we have to believe that Trump tried to overturn the election. Did he use the executive powers at his disposal? The military? The DOJ? Or did he seek through legal processes to investigate what he and tens of millions of people thought was a fraudulent election? I have no idea how the Supremes will rule on the matter of immunity but in order to need immunity it seems to me there has to be an actual crime. I'm unconvinced that any crime has taken place. This all looks like boilerplate lawyering to me and the purpose is to shut down Biden's kangaroo court in the short term.

        1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

          I find qualified immunity arguments to be compelling. Remember, the Supreme Court made up the doctrine of qualified immunity. A Court could easily rule that the President has qualified immunity from prosecution, only being liable for prosecution if the alleged acts were clearly and unambigiously a violation of clearly settled law.

          I do not know if this Court had this argument before it, though.

    4. Fkthepostoffice   1 year ago

      "The reason you don’t assassinate a chief political rival is because that guy is popular. He has supporters. If you order him killed, it’s going to have a bunch of people worried that they’ll be next. You’d have people taking shots at the former President, the new President, and at every Senator who voted against impeachment. You’d have actual war."

      The most absurd part of Judge Pan's presentation of that scenario is that it just plays out and then there's a continuity of government, but the issue of this assassination becomes a generic matter of criminal trial procedure. In reality, a president that behaves in the way she described is virtually assuring a civil war in which all bets are off, with no functional rule of law. In that scenario, the court's would come under entirely questionable legitimacy depending on whether they serve the same government that orders political assassinations or the rebel factions that resist such behavior.

      It's a poorly contrived scenario to the point that Judge Pan's asking about how the courts would feel about presidential immunity is laughable because everything that follows such an assassination would be a matter of might-makes-right.

      1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

        Do you really think the point of Judge Pan's questioning was to establish the degree of presidential immunity for murder? Oh, dear.

    5. charliehall   1 year ago

      The Whiskey Rebellion was quite popular. So was the Confederacy. Washington and Lincoln ordered violent suppression of the insurrections. People died as a result of each. Good thing. Had the two Presidents simply ignored it, we woudn't have a country today.

    6. B G   1 year ago

      In the current political climate, it sometimes seems like the sitting President could cut the throat of the Speaker of the House in front of a joint session of Congress during the State of the Union address, and if the majority of the House belonged to the same party there wouldn't be an impeachment, and if an impeachment did happen then having 38 Senators of that party would ensure no conviction in the ensuing "trial".

  7. Don't look at me!   1 year ago

    Trump lawyers bad, mkay?

    1. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

      Imagine a defense attorney coming up with a novel theory of the law in coming up with a defense of his client against criminal charges? It is absolutely outrageous and must not be allowed to stand!

      1. Fkthepostoffice   1 year ago

        The audacity

      2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

        You mis-spelled 'nonsense'.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago (edited)

      If they weren’t evil they would not work for the Nazi Trump.

      (Did I do TDS right?)

  8. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

    Fatass Donnie would never be impeached by the current GOP House so why would he need to resign after murdering his opposition?

    Then he would (presumably) die as El Presidente for Life just as he planned.

    Reelection would be guaranteed with fake electors.

    1. Dillinger   1 year ago

      you need higher quality drugs.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

        With more fentanyl.

    2. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      Maybe if he started murdering political opponents, and the GOP refused to impeach, the GOP wouldn't be able to hold onto a congressional majority. Seems like something that a lot of people would be upset about.

      1. Fkthepostoffice   1 year ago

        This is exactly right, but almost presumes too much about people's willingness to simply go through the legal channels under the described scenario. If a president knocks off an opponent and is not held accountable through the legal due process (which in this case Trump's attorneys argue includes impeachment with a high likelihood of conviction) there would garaunteed be a civil war as the assassinated political side would not abide legal inaction. Once a civil war is at issue, there's either going to be a change of power such that the president who ordered the assassination is impeached and then convicted and prosecuted, or he will remain in power as a dictator where might makes right. But in every way this comes down to which side is more successful in the pure use of violence, not a question of legal jurisprudence and due process.

    3. Sevo   1 year ago

      turd lies. That's not a surprise to anyone who reads his constant stream of bullshit.
      But it's becoming obvious that as Misek is too stupid to understand the concepts of "evidence" or "relevance", the concept of "honesty" is simply beyond turd's ken.

    4. Square = Circle   1 year ago

      Reelection would be guaranteed with fake electors.

      Which is why he's still president right now.

      1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

        Maybe you missed it, but Trump's fake electors plan failed. It failed because Pence wouldn't play ball, and Congress was able to certify the EC results (after a delay caused by you-know-what). It was a plan which was deliberately set in motion by Trump. He shouldn't be rewarded for failing.

    5. Zeb   1 year ago

      You have no basis to make that assumption. The Trump impeachments were completely partisan and political. There may be some Republican reps who would support him no matter what, but there are a lot more that I'm pretty confident would impeach a president for that kind of actual criminality and lawlessness. Just consider how many jumped ship after Jan 6.

      1. Square = Circle   1 year ago

        Yeah - there's a whole faction of Republicans who have been actively trying to get rid of him. The idea that they would all in lockstep absolve him of murder is just bizarre. Hell, several Republicans supported the thin excuses for impeachment we've already seen.

        1. chemjeff radical individualist   1 year ago

          The idea that they would all in lockstep absolve him of murder is just bizarre.

          The idea that the president would murder a political rival is so far outside the bounds of acceptable presidential behavior. So if we already are willing to assume that the president is violating all sorts of laws and norms by murdering people, why are we going to assume that Congress is going to act "normally"?

      2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

        Perhaps you're right: you're "pretty confident" Republicans would impeach and convict Trump for ordering the assassination of a political rival.

        How confident are you that Republicans would impeach and convict Trump for less egregious criminal acts?

        Because that's the problem. Not assassinations--that will never happen. But ordinary criminal acts committed by the President, for which he demands absolute immunity.

        1. BigT   1 year ago

          You mean like accepting bribes, specifically mentioned as high crimes? Most.

          1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

            Sure, like accepting bribes. Would the Republicans in the Senate ever in a million years convict Trump of accepting bribes? Or, if you prefer, would the Democrats in the Senate ever in a million years convict Biden of accepting bribes?

            1. Ersatz   1 year ago (edited)

              would ENOUGH Dems vote to convict? no.. i would think the hive mind that passes for individuality in the dem congress would not be on board with that. would enough republicans? i believe so. The borg (D) would reinvent the word ‘bribe’ The Rs would not and would be satisfied with the VP taking over.

    6. B G   1 year ago

      I feel like I need to preface this comment with a repetition that I never thought trump was fit for office, or even candidacy, in 2016 (he's too narcissistic for a field where being a sociopath and a narcissist seems to almost be the minimum standard for admission), and don't think he's any more fit for office than Biden in 2024. I've never voted for him at any level so far, and won't do so going forward.

      That said, it's particularly fascinating that so many of the people who insist that he "plans to make himself a dictator" also saw his single greatest failure as President to have been an insufficiently authoritarian response to the Covid Pandemic. Interesting that the worst thing a "would be tyrant" ever did was to choose not to seize the opportunity when presented with a viable pretense to suspend all manner of civil liberties (the President of NZ who the anti-trumpers all revered even postponed national elections in that country because 12 people tested positive on a day several weeks before the voting would have been held). It'd be as if HItler had dismissed the Reichstag fire as an accident or result of faulty lighting installation, or if Julius Caesar had refused the appointment to be Emperor and instead deferred to the Senate. The people who were most outraged over the idea that trump was looking to shred the Constitution and try to make the USA into some kind of hereditary monarchy are the same ones who went completely ripshit that he chose not to do it when they demanded that absolute power in the nation be consolidated into the Presidency.

      Then in the spring of 2021, the DNC put up a bunch of billboards around the country (mostly in deep-blue cities) thanking Biden by name for single-handedly saving the country; except for the picture not showing him in a military uniform or holding a baby, they'd have been a perfect fit if they'd been put up in Moscow in the 1920s, or Beijing in the 1950s, or Havana in the 1960s, or Tehran in the 1980s. Not to mention what's going on with the early primaries for the Dem party at the moment to prevent any meaningful challenge to a man who probably should have been taken out via 25A at least a year ago (and might have been if Kamala Harris weren't so widely despised outside of CA).

      For all the chatter about how much trump supposedly studies Hitler, the DNC has seemed to be very comfortable acting in accordance with the strategy of "accuse the opponent of that for which you are guilty".

      The only thing more tragic to imagine in Nov 2024 than a re-match between trump and Biden is the likelihood that creates that one of them will actually win the election. OTOH, if this shitshow doesn't shatter the two party system, it's hard to imagine there's much hope that anything could.

  9. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

    The legal theory Boehm is hyperventilating about here (I am not certain how much actual relation it has with what Trump's lawyers proposed), probably does not have much likelihood to stand. On the other hand, a sitting president is almost certainly immune to criminal prosecution until he is successfully impeached and removed from office. The latter part is why I think the a general claim to prosecutorial immunity after leaving office is bunk, what confers immunity is holding office of the President in the moment.

    On the other hand, I do remember an idea from around 2016 that prosecuting your political opponents was bad form and an even a danger to our democratic republican form of government, but I must have misheard.

    1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

      The latter part is why I think the a general claim to prosecutorial immunity after leaving office is bunk, what confers immunity is holding office of the President in the moment.

      Other officials do enjoy some type of immunity, such as police officers enjoying qualified immunity for their job-related acts, or judges enjoying absolute immunity for their orders and judgments.

    2. Pear Satirical   1 year ago

      Closer to 2018 and it only applies to people who may become your political rival...for some reason.

    3. B G   1 year ago

      "On the other hand, I do remember an idea from around 2016 that prosecuting your political opponents was bad form and an even a danger to our democratic republican form of government, but I must have misheard."

      It's only a bad thing if it's done by the party who doesn't have the "reputable" media carrying their water willingly, and in many cases eagerly. WaPo even openly published the marching orders they received from the WH Press office regarding "how to interpret reports related to the impeachment inquiry" started by the House of Representatives so they could subpoena certain records from the Administration. I'm not sure if they considered that a version of "transparency" in the hope that readers would then understand why all of their ensuing coverage was in tight compliance with those instructions.

      Orwell himself would be gobsmacked if he were alive to witness what's been happening with those who control the channels of information in the USA in the last few decades. No need for a "Ministry of Truth" when you've got half the public snowed into believing only the outlets which recite the official talking points without being asked; not that the lack of a need stopped them from trying to form one....

  10. DesigNate   1 year ago

    If it’s an “official act”, I don’t see how you DON’T go through impeachment first, as that is the proper channel for dealing with an official executive act.

    Of course, murdering your Political rival would need some VERY strong foundation to justify it as an Official Act…

    1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      If it's done using the military, as the hypothetical proposes, I can't see how it wouldn't be an official act of the President. He can't give that order as a private citizen, it's only his authority as the commander in chief of our armed forces that would allow him to give that order.

      It's also a case where, obviously, people are going to impeach the president. Because you'd never know who's next, if he was somehow able to do this. Your political alliance is going to take a backseat to your own self-interest.

      1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

        We would need a narrow definition of official act.

        Judges enjoy absolute immunity for judicial acts. Judicial acts are narrowly defined as orders and judgments issued from the bench. Soliciting bribes, nor sexually harassing counsel, would constitute judicial acts. A Court should narrowly construe official acts in the same manner.

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          We would need a narrow definition of official act.
          Yes. But I don't know how you get there. Is investigating a potentially fraudulent election a legitimate official act? Who get's to decide? A DC jury who likes the outcome? Or is impeachment the only legitimate remedy for a president who crosses some undefined line.

      2. Zeb   1 year ago

        And perhaps even basic morality (I know that's a lot to expect from congress, but surely some of them have some kind of conscience).

      3. DesigNate   1 year ago

        I more meant official as in people would actually accept the president doing it.

    2. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   1 year ago

      murdering your Political rival would need some VERY strong foundation to justify

      Fatass would deny it, of course.

      PARTISAN WITCHHUNT!

      1. Sevo   1 year ago

        turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
        If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
        turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

      2. Outlaw Josey Wales   1 year ago

        It is good Trump brings it up now so that when it does occur, if it does, from the other side, it will be more than a "Trump would do this" idea.

    3. Agammamon   1 year ago

      Obama designated an American teenager an 'enemy combatant'.

      And since there's no *legal* criterion for such a thing - the precedent is already set.

      1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

        I don't think there's any evidence, at present, that al-Awlaki's son was ever on a CIA kill list. Supposedly, he was a bystander in a drone attack attempting to take out someone else. I can't find anywhere that Abduhlrahman al-Awlaki was ever listed as an enemy combatant.

        But Anwar al-Awlaki is bad enough. He absolutely was targeted and on a CIA kill list, despite being an American citizen who wasn't able to defend his rights in court. He wasn't actively at war with the US, wasn't using a weapon or supply weapons (that I can tell) to anyone. His crime was his advocacy. He said things that spurred others to action.

      2. DesigNate   1 year ago

        Al-Alwaki and his son weren’t political rivals of Obama. Not that it makes it any better, but it doesn’t quite fit the judges hypothetical.

        1. Agammamon   1 year ago

          If you can drone an American without a court finding them guilty and sentencing to death, then the precedent has been set.

          All the rest is just a matter of degrees, but the line has been crossed already.

          1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

            No, nothing has been set. If Trump is not immune, neither is Biden or Obama.

    4. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Important to note... they did go through impeachment regarding J6.

    5. B G   1 year ago

      The kind of foundation which might start with calling your opponent an "existential threat to the Republic"? Or calling his main base of voters "domestic terrorists"? Perhaps repeatedly claiming that he "masterminded an insurrection" in which none of the hundreds of participants to face criminal charges were charged with insurrection?

      Being in CA, it's hard for me to get a sense of whether the nation as a whole is buying in, but I can't imagine what they'd be doing differently if the intention were to lay exactly that foundation.

      What's possibly the most disturbing is that removing trump from the board as a strategic move is a horrible plan if the goal is to see Biden re-elected in 2024. With the key constituencies his support for Israel is costing him (most analysts already think that Biden can't possibly win Michigan without the Palestinian voters in Dearborn), the only real hope Biden still has is to energize the anti-trump wing of his party (they did cast most of the votes he recieved in 2020, after all). Pretty much any other possible GOP contender is likely to wipe the floor with Joe, especially since they'd lose less of the "anti-vax-mandate" crowd to RFK Jr than trump would.

      Unless the DNC machine bosses know something about how the voting will play out that the general public doesn't, or if there's some kind of contingency to not actually have an election next November?

  11. M L   1 year ago

    What about all those people Obama drone killed?

    1. Dillinger   1 year ago

      could not be reached for comment.

    2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      Why do you mention Obama and not Trump? They both "drone struck" hundreds of people. Trump actually ordered more Yemen drone strikes in his four years in office than Obama did in his eight.

      Then there was the assassination of the Iranian general in Iraq (which nearly started a hot war with Iran). He just got lucky that Iran shot down its own airliner in response.

      Yes, Trump's clearly the "ant-war" candidate...

      1. The Last American Hero   1 year ago

        Obama launched undeclared wars in seven countries in 8 years. Trump started zero, and tried to stop at least 2.

        1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

          He tried to start one with Iran, as I mentioned above.

          But the point is not that Obama wasn't an "anti-war" candidate, but that clearly war-waging Trump wasn't the "anti-war" candidate his minions now believe. Because they just conveniently "forget" everything he did involving the US military when he was in charge.

          He used it prolifically to strike (legitimate) targets around the world, but primarily in Yemen. But you don't want to hear it, because you'd rather believe he's "anti-war"...

          1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

            That's literally not true. The dod wanted to start a war in Iran, and Trump would not sign off on it. Part of the Mar a Lago raid was the doj taking that documentation back.

            1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

              Strangely, you don't deny that Trump ordered Soleimani's assassination (which is arguably sufficient in itself to deny Trump any kind of "anti-war" merit badge), but instead argue that, despite nearly starting a war with the assassination, Trump is really "anti-war" because he didn't order an all-out war against Iran supposedly being demanded by the Department of Defence.

              I take it you're referring to the "classified" document Trump was allegedly waving around in the meeting revealed in an audio recording from his Bedminster office? The document (which Trump later claimed he wasn't waving around--it was just some "newspaper clippings") was most likely a DoD contingency plan for war with Iran should the government decide that was necessary.

              This was not evidence "the DoD wanted to start a war with Iran". Indeed, the Trump Bedminster recording clearly shows that what Trump was concerned about was what chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley had recently claimed in his book, that he had personally taken all necessary actions to prevent Trump from trying a "wag the dog" move (start a war, declare martial law) in a last-ditch effort to stay in office.

              The fact that Milley had not actually authored the Iran war plan deftly escaped Trump's notice--it had actually been produced under Trump's previous chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford.

              You can disagree with my characterization of Trump's order to kill Soleimani as him "trying to start a war with Iran" (Trump is, after all, reckless enough to do that for any number of reasons), but you cannot deny that, with that action, he nearly did.

  12. Naime Bond   1 year ago

    '... surely he or she would be impeached and convicted, right? ...' Of course not. Only an idiot, knowing there are two possible Impeachment results, A or not A, would make such an idiotic statement. Entire article is written in a Twilight Zone where only 'A' can exist but 'not A' doesn't.

  13. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

    We need a laughing face emoji.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      Or a middle finger emoji.

  14. Zeb   1 year ago

    Why "overturn the election" and not "challenge the election results"?

    Whatever the outcome of this appeal is, the real problem is that the charges are ridiculous. Trump, whether he was right, wrong, deluded, lying or honestly mistaken did nothing that isn't protected by the 1st amendment, with or without presidential immunity. The violence on Jan 6 was terrible. Everything else that happened is explicitly protected as petitioning for redress of grievances.

    1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

      When does freedom of speech end and inciting a riot begin?

      1. Dillinger   1 year ago

        >>When does freedom of speech end

        never.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          That is a very deontological answer.

          1. Dillinger   1 year ago

            I'm in the dissent of all the first amendment-slicing cases

            1. damikesc   1 year ago

              Yup. Best to err on the side of allowing speech.

              1. SQRLSY One   1 year ago

                SOME assholes have absolutely ZERO shame for their blatant-latent hypocrisy!!!

                Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
                How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?

                Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to severely constrict these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

                So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!

                “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
                Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)

                (Etc.)

                See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/

                (And Asshole Extraordinaire will NEVER take back its' totalitarian bullshit!!!! 'Cause Asshole Extraordinaire is already PERFECT in every way!!!)

                This (above damikesc quote) is a gem of the damnedest dumbness of damikesc! Like MANY “perfect in their own minds” asshole authoritarians around here, he will NEVER take back ANY of the stupidest and most evil things that he has written! I have more of those on file… I deploy them to warn other readers to NOT bother to try and reason with the most utterly unreasonable of the nit-wit twits here!

                1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                  Fuck off, Nazi. Go to the Atlantic and peddle your authoritarian babble there.

                  1. SQRLSY One   1 year ago

                    How is YOUR totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along, totalitarian and tribalistic BITCH? "Tribe" is ALL that matters, right, right-wing defender of the indefensible?

                  2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

                    The staff at the home has blocked SQRSLY from the Atlantic site. Too many sticky keyboard episodes.

      2. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago (edited)

        Imminent lawless action, per Brandenburg, and further clarified via Hess v. Indiana.

        It requires clear advocacy to produce imminent lawless action, stated in unambiguous terms, that has a high likelihood of producing a lawless result.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          That's a very lawyerly answer.

          1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

            You asked a very legal question.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              Dillenger didn't think so. He gave a very principled answer that has nothing to do with written legislation.

              I'm asking because I want to read different points of view. Yours was legal. Thank you.

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                Cite?

                1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                  Blind?

                2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  Is that your mating call or something?

              2. BigT   1 year ago

                Are we not a country OF LAWS?

        2. Think It Through   1 year ago

          I do remember some recent testimony that "it depends on the context."

        3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

          Or it requires Trump.

      3. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

        lol "inciting a riot". please.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          That was a very "Stop talking about Trump!" answer.

      4. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago

        Probably when one incites a riot.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          Must there be a riot? Can someone try but fail, and still have committed a crime? What if they get stopped before doing something that would have for sure started a riot?

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            Hey guys. White Mike is back!

      5. Zeb   1 year ago

        It at least needs to be specific and unambiguous incitement. Not simply creating an atmosphere of anger and distrust, which as far as I can see is the worst Trump is accused of.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          I thought there were accusations based upon what he said on the infamous day itself, and the delay between stuff happening and him offering a clarification.

          1. Zeb   1 year ago (edited)

            I haven’t seen anything to convince me that there is really anything to that. Seems very speculative and assumes a lot. It’s hard to find an account of that day that doesn’t have some agenda or other, so I'm still not confident that I have a good idea of the sequence of events.
            I think the worst you can say is that Trump was making sloppy and irresponsible claims. Which is definitely free speech. And he did explicitly tell his supporters to go in peace and to be better than violent leftist protesters.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

              This country has had the longest tradition of peaceful transitions of power in the history of history I believe.

              Trump shat on that.

              Not sure if that rises to the level of criminality, but I hope he’s a stain on history books for it.

              And none of the J6 bullshit or Georgia bullshit or any of that bullshit would have happened if he wasn't a crybaby about the election. Ashli Babbitt would be alive if he'd simply conceded the election like a big boy.

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                As you've been told hundreds of times prior, Trump isn't close to the first to contest elections in courts or words retard.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

                  The standard Trump defense: Someone else did it first so that makes it ok!

                  Two wrongs make a right winger.

              2. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

                What we do know is that the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton) used federal law enforcement resources and intelligence resources to undermine the peaceful transfer of power.

                https://reason.com/2023/05/16/for-6-5-million-durham-report-finds-fbi-didnt-have-solid-dirt-on-trump-and-russia/

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

                  She conceded the election. That makes her more of a man than Trump. Which I don't like to say because I despise the woman.

            2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              I'm trying to imagine Trump telling his supporters to settle down in some counterfactual where they actually did gain the upper hand on certifying the election. And I'm failing. I just can't imagine that happening.

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                Here is his speech. Where is the incitement?

                https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

              2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago (edited)

                some counterfactual where they actually did gain the upper hand on certifying the election.

                You mean a scenario in which the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes and a bunch of unruly tourists defeated the Capitol Police, the US Marshals, and the National Guard and seized Washington? Give us the details on how that would have worked.

              3. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                If his goal was to obstruct the federal proceeding, which they did...why was his public statement telling them "Go home. We have to have peace," instead of "Good job. Stay there, don't surrender, never yield. Don't let them certify the vote."

                If he'd said the latter, I'd definitely think we'd have more evidence that the obstruction was completely intended.

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  CYA, duh.

                  1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

                    But if his goal was to have a riot decertify the electors, why tell them to go home? Seems counterproductive to his supposed goals.

        2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          A lot of the arguments I see are "He meant this" vs "No, he meant that".

          1. Outlaw Josey Wales   1 year ago (edited)

            That seems to be the other side's argument. You might read the transcript of the speech again, not just the parts you like.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              I'm not on a side. So why don't you guide me through the speech, and tell me when he's serious and when he's not. Then apply the same standard to others.

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                Lol. Youre not on a fucking side. God damn. You can't help it you pathetic pathalogical liar.

                Here is the transcript. Where is the fucking incitement.

                https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

                1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

                  Whenever I disagree with what you say I think, you call me a liar. And people actually believe your shit. It's true that half of the people out there are below average intelligence. You prove it every day.

            2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              Sorry I almost choked to death after rereading that.

        3. BYODB   1 year ago

          The unambiguous part was apparently answered by an expert on the stand who stated, in essence, that Trump was using coded language that only racists and his supporters (plus intellectual leftists) could decode.

          In essence, a strawman by any measure.

          It also means that any statements were definitionally ambiguous.

          1. JesseAz   1 year ago

            And sarc supports narrative by strawman if it is against Trump.

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              You never fail to do what you claim others are doing while you are doing whatever is you accuse others of doing yourself.

              I bet you steal gas while claiming the people driving past the station just pumped their fuel without paying for it.

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago

                I see your bender is still ongoing. Careful. Still 2 days left of the weekend.

      6. Pear Satirical   1 year ago

        Sarc thinks calling for people to "peacefully and patriotically" protest is a riot.

        1. SQRLSY One   1 year ago

          Don’t fear the revolt!
          (insurrection)!

          All our times have come
          Here, but now they’re gone
          Seasons don’t fear the revolt
          Nor do the wind, the sun, or the rain
          (We can be like they are)
          Come on, baby
          (Don’t fear the revolt)
          Baby, take my hand
          (Don’t fear the revolt)
          We’ll be able to fly
          Baby, I’m your man
          La, la la, la la
          La, la la, la la
          Valentine is done
          Here but now they’re gone
          Horst Wessel and Ashli Babbs
          Are together in eternity
          (Horst Wessel and Ashli Babbitt)

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel

          Horst and Babbs both wanted to grab political power through violence, and got back, what they were dishing out. Karma is a bitch! Live by the sword, die by the sword!

          Refute it, bitch!

          1. Pear Satirical   1 year ago

            "Refute it, bitch!"

            K, I refute it, bitch.

            1. SQRLSY One   1 year ago

              Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

              So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

              Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

              Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

              Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

              At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

              Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

              Thank You! -Reason Staff

              1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

                Fuck off, Nazi.

                1. SQRLSY One   1 year ago

                  Make me, Ye Perfect Necrophiliac death-loving hypocritical BEYOND-Bee-Yotch!!!

      7. DesigNate   1 year ago

        One could argue that even telling people to riot should be free speech as no one HAS to listen to you and actually do it. Admittedly, that might be an extreme take.

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago

          I'm still waiting for the conviction of that guy in a zoot suit.

        2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

          The courts have ruled otherwise—incitement is not protected speech if the lawless action is specific, imminent, and likely.

          1. DesigNate   1 year ago

            I know they have, doesn’t mean it couldn’t be argued anyway.

      8. Mickey Rat   1 year ago

        When the Democrats hear the dog whistles?

        There is not much in what Trump said that day which is definitive proof he intended to start a riot. The contention has been he was literally speaking in code because his actual words were not calls to violence.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          I can see both points of view.

          On the one hand he didn't explicitly ask his followers to riot. He didn't say "Please riot now."

          On the other he claimed the election results were illegitimate for months before and after the election, and that's generally what strongmen say before revolutions. Showing that there wasn't a violent revolution doesn't make that less true.

          1. Pear Satirical   1 year ago

            And Biden said months before the election that they were planning to cheat. "We have put together the largest voter fraud organization in history."

            1. sarcasmic   1 year ago (edited)

              I’m sure he did. That means Trump was right when he claimed fraud after seeing election results he didn’t like, then failed to find it.

              edit: that's sarcasm by the way

              1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

                You really are retarded aren’t you.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

                And before you retreat to your next retarded narrative, he left peacefully on J20 you retarded leftist moron. He didn't even set up Joe to go under special prosecution under completely fabricated lies like Trump Russia.

              2. Pear Satirical   1 year ago

                So Trump can be punished for words he didn't say, but Biden can't be punished for words he did say?

            2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

              You can't be this stupid.

              Obviously, he misspoke. You know, like Trump's "revolutionary airports" and "wet magnets" claims...

          2. JesseAz   1 year ago

            He claimed it for months?!?!? Hillary was still claiming along with other democrats in 2019 you fucking partisan hack.

          3. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            "On the other he claimed the election results were illegitimate for months before and after the election, and that’s generally what strongmen say before revolutions."

            Claiming that elections are going to be a fiddle is what opposition politicians in countries ruled by strongmen say. Not the strongmen. Like the opposition in Maduro's Venezuela, or Putin's Russia.

            Reality is the opposite of your claim. You really don't think this stuff through, do you?

          4. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

            There were in fact widespread and serious irregularities in the 2020 election, some of which were the result of government officials taking advantage of the COVID regime. We must not make it a crime to question the honesty of an election.

            1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

              The legitimate court challenges, appeals, petitions, recounts, audits and "innocent questions" had already come and gone by January 6, 2021.

              The only option he had left was to implement the "fake electors" plan, stop the certification of Biden's victory and throw the election to the State legislatures.

              1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                The legitimate court challenges, appeals, petitions, recounts, audits and “innocent questions”

                No True Scotsman.

                1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                  Not at all. The court challenges occurred at the time they needed to occur--before the certification of the election results on January 6, 2021. Continuing them after that point would have been ridiculous.

                  Plenty of people even today--three years later--are still longing to see if any credible evidence ever emerges from Rudy Giuliani's butt. Evidence they've been repeatedly assured exists in prodigious quantities, but which those who claim to have it have heretofore not been quite ready to reveal...

                  1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                    "Evidence"? It is a fact that there were serious irregularities in the 2020 election that could have been exploited to attempt to alter the outcome. We're way past mere "evidence". That's why it's reasonable to doubt that Biden actually won. You're either uninformed or gaslighting.

                    1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

                      The time to challenge the results of the 2020 election passed long ago. You tried; you failed. Get over it.

                    2. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                      The time to recognize that the 2020 election was so irregular that the results can't be trusted, and the need for reforms to prevent that from happening again, have not passed, and will not. "Getting over it" would mean accepting illegitimate elections from now on.

                    3. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

                      The time to challenge the results of the 2020 election passed long ago.

                      The precedent being set now is that challenging election results is a crime. That is unacceptable.

                  2. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

                    17500 fraudulent votes in Fullerton county GA alone

          5. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

            On the other he claimed the election results were illegitimate for months before and after the election, and that’s generally what strongmen say before revolutions. Showing that there wasn’t a violent revolution doesn’t make that less true.

            so what?

            How many people claimed that the 2016 election was illegitimate?

      9. Fkthepostoffice   1 year ago

        Under U.S. legal precedent? Sometime after the Brandenburg test has been objectively applied.

      10. JesseAz   1 year ago

        When someone actually incites a riot retard. Show us which words you are inferring.

    2. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

      At the very least, qualified immunity should apply.

      https://www.naacpldf.org/qualified-immunity/

      First, by eliminating the requirement from Pierson that officers must have acted in good faith. Second, by providing government officials with immunity unless their conduct violated “clearly established law.” This has been interpreted to mean that unless there was a case in the past that closely matched the facts of the officer’s conduct, the officer could not be held liable, no matter how horrendous their actions. (emphasis added)

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago

      The violence on Jan 6 was terrible.

      It was certainly not great. But I try to keep things at their proper points on the scale.

      I was present during the WTO riots in Seattle. Based on the WOST videos from January 6-- you know, the ones Liz Cheney wanted us to see, most of it was on par with that, and in fact, generally less so. Everyone arrested for fighting with the cops in Seattle was released, and many got a settlement from the city.

      Now, compare January six to almost anything that went on in many American cities, fires, murders, beatings, shootings, attempted killings, arson, property damage, lives ruined. That was genuinely "terrible" and very definitely fits the moniker of "violence".

      1. Super Scary   1 year ago

        Just wait a bit and one of the usual suspects will drop the "peaceful transition of power" phrase like a good little toady.

        1. Idaho-Bob   1 year ago

          Scroll down about 10 comments.

      2. JesseAz   1 year ago

        Just a year prior the media was laughing at Trump being forced into the WH bunker. A church and WH guard shack were set on fire.

        Sarc didn't even complain about it. He kept pushing the IT was wrong to use tear gas narrative of the NYT.

        1. sarcasmic   1 year ago

          You never complained about Aztecs ripping hearts out of people.

          That means you think it's appropriate.

          1. Mother's Lament   1 year ago

            Tell us about the fire extinguisher that killed Brian Sicknick, Sarcasmic. Tell us about the five other officers that died that bloody day. Tell us how it was worse than 9/11.

            1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

              Hey now. Sarc has no side. Ask him. He had gone full Mike Larson.

              Wait... maybe he did meet with Mike and he is posting for sarc after their breakfast mimosa binge.

          2. Pear Satirical   1 year ago

            You've never complained about either the Rwandan or Armenian genocide (and I don't think I've heard you complain about the Holocaust or Holodomor). Clearly you support those.

            1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

              You're improving his point.

              1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

                Here was what Jack Marshall wrote.

                https://ethicsalarms.com/2021/01/06/ethics-observations-on-the-pro-trump-rioting-at-the-capitol/

                First and foremost, anyone who did not condemn all of the George Floyd/Jacob Blake/Breonna Taylor/ Black Lives Matters rioting that took place this summer and fall is ethically estopped from criticizing this episode. That means I can, and will, condemn it as stupid, useless, self-destructive and anti-democratic violence, but most Democrats, progressives and media pundits cannot.

            2. sarcasmic   1 year ago

              One of JesseAz's favorite shticks is to find something someone hasn't said anything about, declare what the person thinks about it, and then call the person a liar when they disagree.

    4. MWAocdoc   1 year ago (edited)

      The American people and the Democrats are now on notice: the loyal opposition can no longer be assumed to follow the rules that the Social Democrats long ago abandoned. The Democratic Socialists can no longer flout the Constitution in words and deeds while peace-loving, silent patriots rely on due process to counter their assaults on liberty. The Socialists and Antifa are right to fear the rising existential threat to “Our Democracy (TM)” and they cannot rely any longer on cancel culture to hold off the righteous anger of those rallying behind battle cries of “Remember Jan Six!” and “Kenosha and Rittenhouse!”

      1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

        Trump is the focal point of the current battles, but he is not the cause of the backlash. The backlash has been building for decades as the socialists have eroded more and more of the Constitutional guardrails against increasingly powerful, increasingly expensive and increasingly intrusive government. Although it's unfortunate that such an outrageous jerk as Trump finally triggered the uprising, it's hard to imagine anyone less controversial and less outrageous than Trump as being capable of doing so. The Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party were regrettable incidents, but it was the Regulars marching to Concord to confiscate Militia cannon and gunpowder that finally ignited the Revolution.

    5. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      ^ show me the man and I'll show you the crime.

  15. Agammamon   1 year ago

    > (According to Trump's Lawyers)

    You mean "Obama's lawyers"? Because he did it first.

    1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      Argued for absolute presidential immunity in a criminal case?

      I must have missed that.

  16. Nardz   1 year ago

    https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1745863377493143906?t=t9yFz00FDGP8xgKCCgPRHQ&s=19

    Gonzalo Lira, Sr. says his son has died at 55 in a Ukrainian prison, where he was being held for the crime of criticizing the Zelensky and Biden governments. Gonzalo Lira was an American citizen, but the Biden administration clearly supported his imprisonment and torture. Several weeks ago we spoke to his father, who predicted his son would be killed.

    [Link]

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago

      Whoa, no shit? Confirmed dead? I just listened to a podcast with his father last night-- and that podcast was less than 24 hours old, and he was still alive.

      1. Nardz   1 year ago

        Don't know what would count as confirmation, but this is the report

    2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      This guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx2pR31Sbsc

      Double pneumonia sucks...

    3. charliehall   1 year ago

      Zelenskyy should have had him shot. He was basically a fifth columnist inside Ukraine. And his previous career before he became a Putin propagandist is the kind of stuff that Trump would have loved but non-perverted folks recoil from. That Zelenskyy allowed him to continue to operate shows weakness of resolve.

  17. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago

    Huh, personal note, I just found out one of my closest friends suffers from facial blindness. After talking with him about it for a while, I gave him my best going-forward dating advice: look closely at the hands.

    1. JesseAz   1 year ago

      Opens the entire butter face market up to him.

  18. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

    You forgot to mention that this "trial" is a farce.

  19. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

    We should also alleviate some of the horror at the idea of "getting away with murder." People get away with murder. It happens rather frequently. What's the clearance rate on homicides in Chicago? It's under 50%, if I recall.

    Most reasonably intelligent people, if they had real desire, could get away with a murder. There's lots of places in the world where there are no cameras, and no evidence or connection would ever tie you back to the crime.

    The reason we don't have a slew of random, senseless murders is that people actually don't want to do it. Serial killers are a curiosity because they're ridiculously rare. But any time you order a drink at a restaurant, you're trusting that your server didn't randomly decide to put arsenic in it.

    If it was just this easy, if there was no downside for the President to order the murder of a political opponent, we'd already have seen it hundreds of times. But that's not the type of world we live in. We operate in a high-trust society in which we agree on political solutions to political problems.

    1. Moderation4ever   1 year ago

      The problem is that we are seeing that a breakdown of the unwritten rules of conduct that results in a loss of the high trust society. Democracy depends on voluntary acceptance of rules and precedents, like the peaceful transition of power. As that breaks down so does trust.

      1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

        Reason already reported on this.

        https://reason.com/2023/05/16/for-6-5-million-durham-report-finds-fbi-didnt-have-solid-dirt-on-trump-and-russia/

        A federal law enforcement establishment forfeiting trust will continue to have far-reaching consequences.

      2. Diane Reynolds (Paul. they/them)   1 year ago (edited)

        like the peaceful transition of power.

        *cough* Arab Spring *cough*

        This reminds me of that conversation the greyzone guys had with the director for the National Endowment for Democracy where she pointed out that "lots of countries have riots and popular uprisings to unseat despots and save democracy-- and they're totally democratic".

        One of the greyzone guys retorted, "So like January 6" and she went dead silent, turned three shades of pale and changed the subject.

  20. Billy Bones   1 year ago

    Reason has become little more than Politico 2.0. I have stopped coming here for actual news/opinion, and just for the entertainment value (as in a good belly-laugh). Reason has become so blinded by their TDS, they have forgotten/lost all of their previous Libertarian principles.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

      That's why most of us go to the Roundup with Good Liz, and then just go straight to the comments after that.

    2. Anastasia Beaverhausen   1 year ago

      Anybody who uses the term "TDS" is blinded by their biases as well.

      Thanks for making it so easy to know who to place on Mute.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

        My mute protects me your mute protects you.

      2. spec24   1 year ago

        That's really a stupid thing to say. TDS is a real thing. Simply using the term doesn't mean your blinded by bias. TDS is an emotional reaction to Trump, and Trump alone, while ignoring every other injustice, especially by the people in your own tribe. You'll notice that the Dems and their helpers in the media actively sought to destroy Trump's presidency through lies and intimidation used a novel disease to try and get him out of office. Rigged the election through lies and suppression. And then 4ucking bragged about it...and you have the balls to come on here and say using the term TDS is biased? You're an idiot of the highest order.

        1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

          You sure sound hinged.

        2. charliehall   1 year ago

          True. Most of Trump's supporters are deranged and not connected to reality. Trump himself clearly is, and so are you.

      3. Sevo   1 year ago

        "Anybody who uses the term “TDS” is blinded by their biases as well."

        Anybody making this claim needs to jam their TDSs up there ass to give their head some company.
        Fuck off and die, TDS-addled shit.

    3. Chumby   1 year ago

      Skip the articles, other than Wolfe, and seek wisdom in the comments (other than the Biden apologists that definitely aren’t supporting Biden).

  21. MollyGodiva   1 year ago

    Oh you are missing a point. If the President assassinates all of the Senate, then he also can't get impeached and convicted.

    1. I, Woodchipper   1 year ago

      OMG you're right. he's Sulla 2.0. We have to stop him by any means necessary!

      how about a show trial on made up weaponized legal bullshit orchestrated by a behind-the-scenes cabal of party apparatchiks? That will probably do the trick.

      1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago (edited)

        But we need Sulla! Who else is going to stop the Marians?

    2. BYODB   1 year ago

      Pretty sure there are plenty of people who can picture Trump in a black robe uttering the phrase 'I am the senate!' as his uses his mind powers to throw senate chairs at tiny green children.

  22. Krenn   1 year ago

    The more traditional method is to assassinate congress before they impeach you.

  23. Sevo   1 year ago

    "...Federal courts have not yet resolved the important question of whether former President Donald Trump has immunity from being prosecuted for his role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election..."

    Nor his role in trying to levitate the capitol, both of which had equal possibilities of occurring.
    Stuff your TDS up your ass Boehm, and then make the world a better place: Fuck off and die.

    1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago

      Anyone think Boehm reads the comments? Liz obviously does, and ENB clearly used to read them as well. On a rare occasion, Ciamarella even pops into the comments. I believe Sullum probably reads them too.

      Not sure about Boehm.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

        Maybe he reads them reluctantly.

        1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

          But strategically.

    2. Scotterbee   1 year ago

      *Man sits in front of computer for several hours at a time refreshing his favorite news site so that he can type the same mean things to randos over and over and thereby marking his virtual territory*

      Pretty sad, actually

      1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

        Don't be ridiculous. Scato obviously has these copypasta things loaded into some kind of keyboard macro. He doesn't actually type them in each time.

  24. The Angry Hippopotamus   1 year ago

    Judge Florence Pan asked whether a president could be “subject to criminal prosecution” if he’d ordered the assassination of a political rival. ”

    What a stupid question.

    Now, if a president drone strikes an American citizen or an aid worker and 6 children, the latter of which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff called a “righteous strike”, history tells us he’s in the clear

    1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      You're acting as though you are totally unaware of Trump's rather impressive record of ordering drone strikes on Yemenis (killing militants and everyone else in the vicinity). He finally managed to exceed Obama in something!

  25. middlefinger   1 year ago

    The signals go out to Pravda.

    In order:
    1. Jan 6th was a violent slaughter filled insurrection
    2. Covid is back and tripledemic is worse
    3. Crime is not happening in blue cities, the data does not support the right wing narrative of crime.
    4. Sanctuary cities never declared themselves sanctuary cities.
    5. The Houthi rebels, leftists and Hamas are all misunderstood peace activists.

    1. charliehall   1 year ago

      Putin's Useful Idiots are all out there promoting all six points! Including in this comment field!!!

  26. MWAocdoc   1 year ago (edited)

    While I realize that this is mostly a sarcastic bit of humor, it falls flat on its face on that count too. Yes, Reason, Presidents have (literally) been immune for over two centuries from being charged with murder. Presidents have ordered the deaths of many people – both individually and specifically; and generally – and not only were they not charged with those deaths, some Presidents were honored for them. The most recent and obvious example that comes to mind is the murder of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. Although the murder of Heads of State of other nations is frowned upon, almost anyone else can be called a terrorist and marked for death. Even innocent bystanders and “oopsies, wrong guy!” are apparently fair game as long as they were marked with a laser targeting guidance system.

    And lets not forget qualified and unqualified immunity for every elected and appointed official in America. Although it’s true that one government official can use weaponized criminal justice offices to target political opponents, bypassing this otherwise sacrosanct “immunity” – Trump is a good example – it has most often been used with the excuse of official corruption selectively against members of the other party while ignoring hundreds of other officials clearly guilty of the same corrupt practices. So not buying it, guys!

    1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

      You make a good point about qualified immunity.

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

      BUT TRUMP!

      1. Vernon Depner   1 year ago

        BUTT RUMP!

    3. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

      This is retarded bin laden was a self stated military enemy. The 14 year old that nigbama killed is a better case for murduer

      1. MWAocdoc   1 year ago

        How about the woman who was killed in the raid? Was she a "self stated military enemy?" When did we declare war on Pakistan?

        1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   1 year ago

          We also pulled nazis from Argentina to execute them, when did we declare war on Argentina?

  27. Walter Bean   1 year ago

    haled in front of Congress

  28. Earth-based Human Skeptic   1 year ago

    (In the voice of Dan Akroyd) "Eric, you ignorant slut."

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Nice.

  29. Fkthepostoffice   1 year ago

    The problem (one of many actually) in this question Judge Pan asks is that government officers have been given immunity for all sorts of official actions in the past, including those resulting in the deaths of political opponents. Government actors were also largely treated as immune as they sought to undermine Trump's presidential campaigns in 2016 and 2020 while accusing him and his campaign team of collusion with the Russian government.

    I'm no fan of immunity for government officials, but it's been applied to far worse actions than the ones Trump engaged in (hint, he complained about and tried to challenge an election result but didn't order an assassination). Boehm beats around the bush that immunity for government officials is bad and stupid and allows for a range of abuses, not the least of which are ones that actually happened and not just overcooked hypotheticals. Criticizing official immunity is all well and good but what sucks about this article is that Boehm and others in the media act all aghast that Trump's lawyers would have the gall to argue that their client should have the same legal protections as any other government actor before him.

    Trump's lawyers were in court to argue that his challenging of the election results was an official action because allegations of election fraud implicate the rule of law. Because an activist judge (which frankly is any judge) opposed this argument from Trump's team, she asserts something of a slippery slope (here it's almost perfectly an inverse of a motte-and-bailey) argument to take the logic of Trump's perfectly normal legal defense to an absurd point to alienate him of the same legal protections afforded to government officials who've done far worse.

    To answer Judge Pan's hypothetical, the Trump team is perfectly grounded in arguing that an official action that prosecutors may view as unlawful (in this case, disputing an election) should first be disavowed by the same government through impeachment (which is essentially the process of declaring the actions of a government officer to be corrupt and not a legitimate use of office). The government does plenty of stuff that would be illegal for the average citizen, and if that is to continue it makes logical sense that the government should revoke the authority of any government actions it later wishes to alienate before those actions can be challenged in civil or criminal court settings. For instance, if a judge and prosecutor conspire to order's a poltical opponent's arrest (an arrest being a government-sanctioned form of kidnap), the political opponent arrested person wouldn't be able to demand the AG be charged with kidnap/false imprisonment unless the judge or AG are impeached and their official actions declared corrupt. Otherwise, you'd have a precedent where any judge/prosecutor could be charged with kidnap for seeking authorization to carry out an arrest.

    If we're all in agreement that government officials shouldn't get immunity for their actions in office, great! I have no problem seeing a president quickly go down for ordering the assassination of a U.S. citizen without the need to have him first impeached. As for Trump's case, it's simply one less legal hurdle he could throw up while arguing that his efforts to challenge the election were lawful, though he can still assert First Amendment free speech claims in some of the DC case. Still, this country supposedly doesn't do ex post facto laws, so there's really no proper way to waive Trump's immunity claims in this particular case under the legal jurisprudence we ostensibly uphold in this country.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   1 year ago

      Well said. In point of fact, the regime prosecutor in this case has been found by the Supreme Court to have violated the rights of individuals using illegitimate novel interpretations of law. Not only is he immune from any consequence, he has been promoted to do exactly the same thing in this case.

      1. JesseAz   1 year ago

        I mean he was openly violating a stay of court as the appeal goes on to drive a political narrative.

      2. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

        When did that happen?

        1. JesseAz   1 year ago (edited)

          0-8 loss at USSC for Bob McDonnell.

          https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/bob-mcdonnell-supreme-court/index.html

          1. Michael Ejercito   1 year ago

            Wow.

    2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      You have no idea what the hearing was about, do you?

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   1 year ago

        It's obvious you don't.

  30. TJJ2000   1 year ago

    Trump is being prosecuted for leftard Propaganda (imaginary crimes).
    "prosecuted for his role in trying to overturn the results"
    Blatant lies.

    There is a difference between skeptical of fraud and attempting to overturn results you Anti-Trump baboons. And if you want to play otherwise Hillary needs to be prosecuted as well.

    1. spec24   1 year ago

      Reason has hit rock bottom.

    2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      Lock her up!

      See if I care.

      And then lock him up (as you have suggested).

      1. Sevo   1 year ago

        One of them committed a crime, asshole, and she is still free. The other didn't, asshole.

        1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

          Not even Trump bothered to indict Clinton and put her on trial, and now you want to declare her "guilty" of a crime anyway.

          I don't mind Hillary going to prison, but not without a fair trial.

          1. TJJ2000   1 year ago

            Sure does show which party is the witch-hunters doesn't it.

  31. spec24   1 year ago

    You've got to be f'ing kidding me? Trying to overturn an election? Are you kidding? He did nothing of the sort!! The left, however, every god damned one of them, should be prosecuted and then executed for treason against a sitting president!! They literally stole the election through fraud and reason sits here shi77ing out stories make-believe stories on Trump. F u, Reason, you leftist shill scumbags!

    1. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      Dude, the Free Republic is thattaway-------------------->>>>>>>>

      1. Sevo   1 year ago

        Doooooooood, your head is up your ass, dooooooooood.

    2. charliehall   1 year ago

      "He did nothing of the sort!! "

      He did exactly that. You just have Trump Derangement Syndrome because you can't accept that your Cult Leader is a fascist criminal.

  32. Pear Satirical   1 year ago

    I do have to ask why Trump's lawyers are going for this particular defense? Arguing that Presidential immunity prevents prosecution over inciting a riot kinda of sounds like an admission of guilt.

    And its blatantly obvious that Trump did no such thing. He told people to be peaceful, not to engage in violence. The riot started during his speech, with rioters actually being let in and even escorted by capital police. And didn't Trump want extra security there that day but was refused by Nancy Pelosi and Mayor Bowser.

    It's also really weird that a guy who was actually calling for people to go into the Capital was given a slap on the wrist (after almost 3 years) when someone who wadn't even there got 22 years in prison. Surely if Trump is guilty of incitement for using coded language, then why isn't Ray Epps when he was far more direct?

    1. A Thinking Mind   1 year ago (edited)

      I do have to ask why Trump’s lawyers are going for this particular defense?

      It’s one of many defenses Trump’s team is using. This one is unique because it needs to be settled before trial, since they can’t even bring the case if he’s completely immune, and it would wipe out all the federal cases against him-possibly even the Georgia case, depending on how it’s settled. It’s an argument that any ethical defense team, in these circumstances, is basically required to offer. "You can’t prosecute my client for actions taken in his official capacity."

      1. Pear Satirical   1 year ago (edited)

        Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

    2. AT   1 year ago

      I do have to ask why Trump’s lawyers are going for this particular defense?

      Because they're bargain bin lawyers who are barely a step above public defenders.

      Trump has a very bad reputation when it comes to how he treats and what he (unrealistically) expects from his legal counsel. Most reputable firms and accomplished attorneys want nothing to do with him. And that has a history LONG before his dalliance in cosplaying POTUS.

  33. CP 2   1 year ago (edited)

    I think the impeachment requirements that team Trump has advocated are a red herring his lawyers invented to make their position look plausible. Impeachment is not a prerequisite to a criminal prosecution, it is a potential civil counterpart to it. And I personally do not agree with Trump that impeachment and conviction is not possible after the president has left office.

    The harder question here is the immunity claim itself. Yes, as the article suggests, at the extreme the President could get away with murdering random people like Hitler did, perhaps even at his own hands (i.e. target practice on 5th Ave). But what about something like Osama Bin Laden’s death? Was President Obama technically liable for his death criminally or civil? Does the fact that the President first designated the random person to be a terrorist make a difference? Does it matter if the assassination itself happened within the U.S. or abroad? It’s a hard question for the judges to decide now about how to define the limits of the immunity claim here.

  34. Sevo   1 year ago

    Step 2: Shoot an unarmed protester in the face.

  35. XM   1 year ago (edited)

    Oh dear god, how can a president ordering the assassination of his political rival be considered as an “official act” of a president? What if he asked the white house intern to perform a sex act on him? “I hereby issue this executive order compelling you to please me” Is that an official presidential act?

    The president can make the case for war to congress and they can approve it. Then he has immunity from “murdering” innocent casualties of war. He can’t do that with political assassination. That’s beyond the power of his office.

    1. TJJ2000   1 year ago

      That day questioning an election was = to a murder.
      The left couldn't cement in their guilt much more at this point.

      Whatever momentary excuse is sold the obvious explanation is the left wants that election questioning stopped by any means necessary.

      1. TZM   1 year ago (edited)

        What Trump is being charged with is beside the point — the issue is whether he’s immune from any criminal charge. But, as it happens, he is not being charged with “questioning an election.”

        1. TJJ2000   1 year ago

          Funny how this so-called "murder" immunity question all the sudden popped up after being compulsively charged with "questioning an election". Addressing things that just never happened to begin with is all this entire Trump-witch-hunt episode is all about.

          1. TZM   1 year ago

            Nothing surprising at all, it’s a standard way judges probe the implications of a party’s argument; they ask about hypotheticals that logically flow from the party’s stance.

            And, no matter how many times you repeat it, Trump isn’t charged with “questioning an election.”

            1. TJJ2000   1 year ago (edited)

              You see everything you’ve said lies in fairy-tale land. What else did Trump do besides question the election (fairy-tales). What else is he asking immunity from (fairy-tales). At what point does imagination have to be checked by judges?

              Gosh ... maybe making a judgement call that robbery is a crime might cause a coin to fall onto the floor out of someone's pocket and someone picking it up and getting ran over by a car.... So golly geez; maybe robbery shouldn't be a crime after all.

              1. TZM   1 year ago

                The indictment is available to online. If you can make an argument that the only acts charged are “questioning the election,” go for it.

    2. ObviouslyNotSpam   1 year ago

      You're confused by the meaning of the term "official act".

      Official act, in this context, means any act done under the color of his office, regardless of whether the purpose of the official action was unlawful or unconstitutional.

      As noted by Judge Pan, "That’s an official act, an order to SEAL Team 6". Which is why, when Judge Pan then asked, “Could a President who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached—would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer did not object that such an order wasn't an "official act", but responded with, “If he were impeached and convicted first”.

      (To which Judge Pan concluded, “So your answer is no”.)

      1. Sevo   1 year ago

        You.
        Are.
        Full.
        Of.
        Shit.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Freedom Lovers Can Reckon with Addicts and Addiction

Daniel Akst | 6.15.2025 7:00 AM

Ross Douthat on Digital Alienation, Birth Rates, and Demographic Collapse

Liz Wolfe and Zach Weissmueller | From the July 2025 issue

More Than 1,800 'No Kings' Protests Aim for Nonviolent Pushback Against Trump Policies

Nancy Rommelmann | 6.14.2025 10:10 AM

Have Presidents Grown Too Powerful To Be Removed From Office?

Gene Healy | 6.14.2025 8:00 AM

Some Federal Agencies Are Actually Getting More Efficient

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 6.14.2025 7:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!