Can the president actually shoot someone and be protected by the office he holds?

UsualName

UsualName

Some of you will know I have said this is the central question related to Oval Office protections for the person who holds the office and is one that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on due to Trumps criminal nature.

Even though this is a “test” question what it actually asks is where is the line in the degree of crime which the constitution insulates the president from prosecution?

Can a sitting president actually shoot and kill his political opponent and there be no legal remedy as long as they are president? And if the answer is no, which it is, then the president is in fact not totally insulated from legal prosecution of criminal behavior. And, if not totally immune then where is the line drawn?

This question needs a ruling because of Trump who will push all issues of crime and legality way past what is accepted as the norm.

1A282708-C1B7-478E-A430-883637B5E2A1.jpeg
 
UsualName said:
Some of you will know I have said this is the central question related to Oval Office protections for the person who holds the office and is one that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on due to Trumps criminal nature.

Even though this is a “test” question what it actually asks is where is the line in the degree of crime which the constitution insulates the president from prosecution?

Can a sitting president actually shoot and kill his political opponent and there be no legal remedy as long as they are president? And if the answer is no, which it is, then the president is in fact not totally insulated from legal prosecution of criminal behavior. And, if not totally immune then where is the line drawn?

This question needs a ruling because of Trump who will push all issues of crime and legality way past what is accepted as the norm.

View attachment 211855
More...


You need to specify whether you are talking about a Republican or Democrat president. Because as you know, when it comes to impeachment proceedings, and other legal proceedings we have a two separate systems. Yes?
 
Trump attorney claims president could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue: ‘Nothing could be done’

William Consovoy, an attorney for President Donald Trump, argued in court on Wednesday that President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution if he literally shoots someone on Fifth Avenue.

In a hearing before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, Consovoy took the position that Trump is immune from a subpoena for his financial records, which are being investigated by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.

At one point, Judge Denny Chin asked Consovoy about what he called the “Fifth Avenue example,” referring to a Trump claim that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.

“This is not a permanent immunity,” Consovoy said.

“I’m talking about while in office,” the judge pressed.

“No,” Consovoy replied.


“Nothing could be done, that’s your position,” Chin remarked.

“That is correct,” Trump’s attorney insisted.
 
Nancy pulled a finger on him... trump logic says he can shoot her now. The gun Elvis gave to Nixon came up again in the new Zombieland movie.

Except he could be impeached.
 
Spike Trader said:
View attachment 211858



Former acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker told a Fox News audience that it is not a crime for President Donald Trump to abuse the power of his office.
More...


It is not as simple as those of you who like explanations that fit on a bumper sticker would like.

Whitaker is technically correct. The Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton in particularly specifically addressed this issue in the Federalist Papers and specifically rejected the idea that an abuse of power by the president should be a prosecutable crime because the very purpose off the Constitution- among other things- was to get away from the British history where Parliament consisted prosecuted high public officials for abuse of power everytime they had a disagreement over something.

They did not however argue that he was beyond penalty but that the remedy was to impeach and thus the impeachment clause.

The laymen, binary-bumper sticker level thinkers argue that an assertion that abuse is not a crime means he cannot be impeached totally misunderstand the legal and constitutional background at play here. The ability to prosecute for abuse -for a sitting president- is limited and difficult at best. But the ability to impeach for it is there anytime they want. So the argument against criminal prosecution is NOT a barrier to impeachment, and Whitaker is technically correct that the framers wanted prosecution to be difficult but the door is open to prove it as a high crime and misdemeanor if you can do it.

Yeh, I know the binary ones fell out after my first sentence.

That's fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top