Could Trump Murder Nancy Pelosi on National TV with Immunity?

First of all, your question seems to be related to the Classified Documents. This thread is about Sore Loser Trump's immunity claim, which is the January 6th election interference case. So you are off-topic.

I will address anyway. Biden and Pence both had some classified documents. Both cooperated and returned them to the Federal Government. Trump was asked over and over by the Department of National Archives. At this point the Justice was not involved. When Trump refused to turn them over, the Department of National Archives turned the matter over to the Justice Department. The only reason Biden's case even went to the Justice Department (Pence's did not) was for appearance sake. Hope that answers your FOX News propaganda question.

 

Um, you write, "I will address anyway" and then didn't. My question, "Could Joe Biden do just about any felony and be found to be an old man with a poor memory and therefore un-prosecutable" is on topic as it provides balance/benchmark to the topic at hand. Oh well. The response you did provide is a distinction without a difference. No one cares. "Rules for thee but not for me."

 

I would say they are wrong. The anti prosecution policy is designed to take prosecutions out of the picture in policy decisions. It is not to ignore a violent crime. No, he wouldn't get away with it. I don't even believe his lawyers said that. Probably fake news.

 

Hmmm. I guess FAUX News didn't cover this. What a surprise, I guess their content staff never saw the news??? Here is the article from the Conservative outlet "The Hill".

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...f-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/

Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity

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

 

If the question is stupid, then MT's right that the Supreme Court shouldn't be hearing this case. Trump's legal case requires the answer to this question be "yes" and a version of it showed up at trial, and Trump's lawyers said "yes."

 

Well, I am not for murdering anyone and, as is Moscow Mitch, she's a force to be reckoned with but her stand on NOT stopping Congress from trading on "insider information" is totally self serving and corrupt.

Directly to the OP, the majority of Trump's base will find a way to rationalize Trump's behavior if he did this....

 

Did you listen to the oral arguments? They said official acts are covered by immunity which is why we have the impeachment process. We've already established you don't have a problem with the President determining an American is an enemy of the state and assassinating them extrajudicially. This has already happened, presumably within your lifetime. It's interesting that you oppose a hypothetical fantasy but had no problem with the reality when the person who does the killing has a D next to their name.

 

While I personally dont think it would or should be legal, Trump and many of his supporters do.

 

No, but the FBI could with Trump's permission. Or not.
Either way, federal authorities can pretty well bump off anyone they choose and the internal process locks justice out.

 

Impeachment does NOT prevent prosecution did you not ever study the Constitution? It is quite uneqivical and clear on the matter.

 

That's not what they said. They quoted the Constitution: Article 1 Section 3

The Constitution says the first step before criminal indictment is the President must be impeached and convicted in the Senate. The only punishment from a Senate impeachment conviction is removal and disqualification from office. However, once convicted in the Senate, the president can then be tried for any crimes he or she may have committed. It is believed that this was written into the Constitution to explicitly prevent partisan hacks like illegitimate special counsel Jack Smith from targeting the political opponents of a President who is campaigning for re-election. This is why your vote for President is so important. Once elected, that person has the power of an entire government branch, and checks and balances are written into the Constitution to protect that branch and the institution of the office.

Democrats tried to get an impeachment conviction on Trump for these allegations and failed. So their argument is until that happens, the Constitution says he cannot be prosecuted. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Find an amendment of the Constitution that overrides Article 1 Section 3. That's the legal argument they've presented.

You keep presenting highly partisan sources that are misleading you about the facts in this thread. I recommend looking at first-hand documents, like the transcript or the audio of the hearing, rather than blindly trusting partisan articles designed to tell you what you want to hear. Prior Presidents have committed crimes while in office. But they weren't prosecuted for this reason. Trump is unique because they're throwing away precedent to target Biden's political opponent during the campaign.

 

If a headline is quoted then that is perfectly good journalism. Did someone on the staff agree with it and say so in public? When did the Hill become Fox News staff. It didn't agree with what the lawyer said either. I don't see your point other than to suggest that Trump's lawyer made a stupid remarkl that gets no agreement anywhere. You should be happy that people are calling out one of Trump's lawyers.

 

No they don't. One idiot is trying to defend him with a lie. Bad idea.

 

It's literally something that his legal team has confirmed would have to be the case in order to make their immunity claims. And Trump has openly promoted the idea that he has total immunity.

 

It doesn't say "must" anywhere. It never says that criminal conviction can only come if there is an impeachment.

 

Absolutely! There is no way that a president has immunity from any crime. What if there is a meeting with the Senate majority leader, the House majority leader and the president. The president gets upset, and hits Chuck Schumer over the head, killing him. Schumer's wife can't file a lawsuit?

 

This has nothing to do with immunity for a domestic crime. I'm not going to defend anti-terrorism methodologies employed in 2010. But any similarities to the subtext of this thread is tenuous at best.

 

IOW, you will not defend a lynching. How about political show trials?

“Will anyone trust these hyper-politicized courts to try Donald Trump? The federal judiciary is a cesspool of partisanship, and now it’s being asked to oversee some of the most politically fraught criminal trials in American history.”
VOX, FILED UNDER: INVESTIGATIONS INTO DONALD TRUMP, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, POLITICS, By Ian Millhiser Aug 15, 2023.
https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/8/1...-indictments-federal-judiciary-partisan-trust

show trial
noun
: a trial (as of political opponents) in which the verdict is rigged and a public confession is often extracted
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/show trial

1. https://www.dictionary.com › browse › show trial
   Show trial Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
   Show trial definition, (especially in a totalitarian state) the public trial of a political offender conducted chiefly for propagandistic purposes, as to suppress further dissent against the government by making an example of the accused. See more.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Show_trial
   Show trial - Wikipedia
   Show trial. A show trial is a public trial in which the guilt or innocence of the defendant has already been determined. The purpose of holding a show trial is to present both accusation and verdict to the public, serving as an example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors. [2]
   
   

 

You can post a lot of junk, and talk about show trials, but that is all apart from the central issue. Should Donald Trump (or any president) have immunity for a blatant crime?

 

Blatantly rigging an election under color of law as the whole world watches is a blatant crime.
It is also very stupid politics.

“You people! With your kangaroo jury, your kangaroo justice! You had no right to take the law into your own hands!” Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot
https://www.quotes.net/mquote/666275

 

I get it/ So your viewpoint is that Biden didn't win the 2020 election?

 

Read my posts. Of course Biden won the election. I have pointed that out here repeatedly. People who think Trump won do not understand the election process for presidential elections.
Trump lost in 2020, and he is almost certainly going to lose again, but his rabid enemies are helping to give him an outside chance.

Lara Trump says father-in-law Donald raised $1.5 MILLION on the first day of the trial
Daily Mail|2 days ago
Republican National Committee co-Chair Lara Trump revealed that her father-in-law's reelection brought in $1.5 million on the first day of the hush money criminal trial proceedings.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rump-donald-hush-money-trial-fundraising.html


Lara Trump Claims Donald's Trial Has A Lucrative Impact On His Campaign
The List on MSN.com|2 days ago
Donald Trump is involved in yet another trial, but his daughter-in-law says that, far from hurting his public image, it's helping raise money for his campaign.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-lucrative-impact-on-his-campaign/ar-BB1lJs90

Lara Trump blasts hush money case as 'insane,' says it won't hurt Trump campaign
The Hill|3 days ago
Lara Trump, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC), said the hush money case brought against her father-in-law is "insane" as jury selection for the trial begins Monday.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...e-as-insane-says-it-wont-hurt-trump-campaign/

Judges and prosecutors have become DJT's most valuable campaign aides.
You have to wonder: Is Trump giving them a cut?

 

I'm getting conflicting messages. You say, "Biden won the election", but you posted this earlier. Please explain.

 

Actually, if elected Trump could have one of his 200 special prosecutors he must appoint to go after Nancy for tearing up his copy of his SOTU speech. It was a classified document until he started his speech.

 

Lol, whatever idiot told you that needs serious therapy. No. It wasn't a "classified document." Bwahahaha, where do you guys come up with these dipshit takes?