The stark question was posed to Trump’s attorney John Sauer by Judge Florence Pan: Was a president immune from prosecution for any unlawful act, at all? Could a president order his political rivals to be assassinated by Seal Team 6 as an official act? Could he sell pardons at his pleasure if he saw fit and then face no consequences for his actions?

“He would have to be impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied,

  • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

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

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

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

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

  • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

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

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      11 months ago

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

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

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        11 months ago

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

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

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Didn’t they sorta try that 3 years ago?

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

  • Goku@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

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

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

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

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

    • TacoThrash3r@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      We have a speaker of the house that said he was ordained by God to be Moses for Republicans sooo I guess you’re not too far off

  • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 months ago

    If he has to be impeached and convicted by the Senate then his lawyers would argue that he can’t be prosecuted afterward because of the double jeopardy clause. This would completely nullify the constitution and the United States of America would cease to exist as we know it. That’s the Republican endgame.

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Putting aside the whole Republican duplicity thing, I don’t think this is double jeopardy.

      Impeachment is, in essence, a political procedure to remove someone from office. There doesn’t need to even be a crime (see Biden’s impeachment for an example).

      So assuming for a moment that a president was impeached, that trial is to remove him from office, not to try him for a crime.

      And even then, impeachment trials are civil where there is no jeopardy.

  • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    I look forward to how SCOTUS Bush v Gore’ing this, granting Trump immunity, and saying “this is not a precedent”.