EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

[mtrycrafts]

...

The question I'm kicking around in my own mind is what's to stop a future president from putting in place his own heavily armed security service that reports directly to the president? ...

Putin comes to mind.
Now, who reminds me of this?

 

[lovinthehd]

Putin comes to mind.
Now, who reminds me of this?

Not sure the secret service doesn't already qualify....

 

[TankTop5]

I don't think so, but the President could pardon them. This wouldn't prevent prosecution under state laws, but I'm not sure how effective that would be if the President ordered people to assassinate the state officials who attempted to enforce the state laws.

The question I'm kicking around in my own mind is what's to stop a future president from putting in place his own heavily armed security service that reports directly to the president? Basically, a modern version of the SS that does not take an oath to support the Constitution or to bear allegiance to anyone or anything other than the president. It would be his personal mob style hit squad.

I suspect there would be many who'd be willing to join if Trump wins the election, but there could be a maniac with maniacal followers from the other end of the political spectrum in the future.

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits use of the military in this way, but so what? The president would say his security group is not the military, and he can't be criminally prosecuted for violating the law anyway.

The militia clause of the Constitution says Congress has the power to call up militias, but the president could say his group is not a militia, and the Constitution doesn't say the president can't create a security service that reports directly to him.

The biggest hurdle I see is that criminal immunity requires an official act in the capacity as president, and it's not clear a president could set up a rogue hit squad and successfully convince a court that his control of the hit squad was an official act.

I haven't spent a lot time on this question. Hopefully I'm missing something.

That’s not one of the Presidents duties. If a president were to attempt something silly (we’re in fantasy land now) like this the military who swore an oath to the constitution to defend against enemy foreign and domestic would act.

Here’s a bit of information most people don’t know, the secret service protects the president and the US marine Corps protects the office of the President. If the President is to be forcibly removed from office it is the marine corps that does it.

I forgot who the meeting was with but the night before Nixon resigned he had a private meeting with in the White House with an advisor and discussed what would happen if he decided not to resign. Within minutes Camp Pendleton and LeJune went on high alert and the Marine Corps started working out plans to remove him from office if needed.

Anyway if a US president thought he could start assassinating political opponents it would end stupid fast, probably faster than this ridiculous conversation.

 

[Trell]

That’s not one of the Presidents duties. If a president were to attempt something silly (we’re in fantasy land now) like this the military who swore an oath to the constitution to defend against enemy foreign and domestic would act.

Here’s a bit of information most people don’t know, the secret service protects the president and the US marine Corps protects the office of the President. If the President is to be forcibly removed from office it is the marine corps that does it.

I forgot who the meeting was with but the night before Nixon resigned he had a private meeting with in the White House with an advisor and discussed what would happen if he decided not to resign. Within minutes Camp Pendleton and LeJune went on high alert and the Marine Corps started working out plans to remove him from office if needed.

Anyway if a US president thought he could start assassinating political opponents it would end stupid fast, probably faster than this ridiculous conversation.

Ridiculous conversation?

This is what Sotomayor wrote in her dissent:

>>>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.<<<

 

[TankTop5]

Ridiculous conversation?

This is what Sotomayor wrote in her dissent:

>>>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.<<<

Read oral arguments from SCOTUS decision and not just Sotomayor’s. That’s just not how it works. The president has to have constitutional authority, acting under an official capacity to have immunity. Last time I checked assassinating, political rivals is not a constitutional authority of the president. That said this specific Supreme Court ruling was bullshit for other reasons and way too of a political ruling. I think it will be reversed very quickly.

edited for grammar

 

[Trell]

Read oral arguments from SCOTUS decision and not just Sotomayor’s. That’s just not how it works. The president has to have constitutional authority, acting under an official capacity to have immunity. Last time I checked assassinating, political rivals is not a constitutional authority of the president. That said this specific Supreme Court ruling was bullshit for other reasons and way too of a political ruling. I think it will be reversed very quickly.

edited for grammar

You mean, wtf does the Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor know about this, compared to your expertise?

 

[TankTop5]

You mean, wtf does the Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor know about this, compared to your expertise?

Hahahahaha! I’m referring to the rest of the Supreme Court’s opinion not mine. Go read what the rest of the Court had to say.

 

[TankTop5]

To address the ridiculous statements about the president now being able to use the military to assassinate US citizens. The president can still only act in his Constitutional capacity and cannot be prosecuted while doing so. Killing Americans is unconstitutional as is using the military domestically unless he declares marshal law. Marshal Law has been used numerous times in the US, both Federally and by individual states. The interesting thing is Marshal Law is not mentioned in the constitution so if a president decided to use it to eliminate political opponents the military would not obey the order as they swore an oath to the constitution and not the president.

 

[Trell]

Hahahahaha! I’m referring to the rest of the Supreme Court’s opinion not mine. Go read what the rest of the Court had to say.

That’s pretty vague argument, and no, I’m not going to read the entire judgment and play constitutional lawyer.

But here is an article where various experts what they think about use of the military for assassinations:

>>>…“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?” she [Sotomayor] wrote. “Immune.”

As extraordinary as that prospect might sound, constitutional law experts say she’s right: The court’s decision in Trump v. United Statesreally does appear to immunize a hypothetical president who directed the military to commit murder, though a president might be hard-pressed to find someone to carry out such an order. …<<<

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/02/trump-immunity-murder-navy-sotomayor-00166385

 

[Trell]

To address the ridiculous statements about the president now being able to use the military to assassinate US citizens. The president can still only act in his Constitutional capacity and cannot be prosecuted while doing so. Killing Americans is unconstitutional as is using the military domestically unless he declares marshal law. Marshal Law has been used numerous times in the US, both Federally and by individual states. The interesting thing is Marshal Law is not mentioned in the constitution so if a president decided to use it to eliminate political opponents the military would not obey the order as they swore an oath to the constitution and not the president.

Read this link: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/02/trump-immunity-murder-navy-sotomayor-00166385

 

[TankTop5]

That’s pretty vague argument, and no, I’m not going to read the entire judgment and play constitutional lawyer.

But here is an article where various experts what they think about use of the military for assassinations:

>>>…“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?” she [Sotomayor] wrote. “Immune.”

As extraordinary as that prospect might sound, constitutional law experts say she’s right: The court’s decision in Trump v. United Statesreally does appear to immunize a hypothetical president who directed the military to commit murder, though a president might be hard-pressed to find someone to carry out such an order. …<<<

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/02/trump-immunity-murder-navy-sotomayor-00166385

That’s an opinion of some legal experts, doesn’t mean it’s correct. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. The President did not gain authority he did not possess before the ruling. All the ruling did was insulate the president from prosecution from actions taken while acting in his official constitutional authority. Killing Americans wasn’t legal before the decision and it didn’t magically become legal after.

Oddly enough people say stupid things

 

[Trell]

That’s an opinion of some legal experts, doesn’t mean it’s correct. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. The President did not gain authority he did not possess before the ruling. All the ruling did was insulate the president from prosecution from actions taken while acting in his official constitutional authority. Killing Americans wasn’t legal before the decision and it didn’t magically become legal after.

Oddly enough people say stupid things

Those experts are wrong but you are right? And yes, people do say stupid things, especially you.

 

[Trell]

As expected the Biden campaign will use the immunity decision against Trump.

The Trump apologists will, of course, say this will never happen and is wrong, as already seen in this thread.

>>>The Biden campaign is releasing a new television ad in battleground states seizing on the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, leveling pointed criticism toward the nation’s highest court and former President Donald Trump.

“Nearly 250 years ago, America was founded in defiance of a king, under the belief that no one is above the law, not even the president. Until now,” the narrator says as video of Trump flashes across the screen.

The 30-second TV spot then features an image of the six conservative Supreme Court justices as the narrator says, “The same Trump Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade ruled that the president can ignore the law even to commit a crime because Donald Trump asked them to.”

“He’s already led an insurrection and threatened to be a dictator on day one,” the narrator continues. “Donald Trump can never hold this office again.” …<<<

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/03/politics/biden-campaign-ad-scotus-immunity/index.html

 

[TankTop5]

As expected the Biden campaign will use the immunity decision against Trump.

The Trump apologists will, of course, say this will never happen and is wrong, as already seen in this thread.

>>>The Biden campaign is releasing a new television ad in battleground states seizing on the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, leveling pointed criticism toward the nation’s highest court and former President Donald Trump.

“Nearly 250 years ago, America was founded in defiance of a king, under the belief that no one is above the law, not even the president. Until now,” the narrator says as video of Trump flashes across the screen.

The 30-second TV spot then features an image of the six conservative Supreme Court justices as the narrator says, “The same Trump Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade ruled that the president can ignore the law even to commit a crime because Donald Trump asked them to.”

“He’s already led an insurrection and threatened to be a dictator on day one,” the narrator continues. “Donald Trump can never hold this office again.” …<<<

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/03/politics/biden-campaign-ad-scotus-immunity/index.html

Weird, a campaign add that stretches the truth, that’s a first

 

[GO-NAD!]

I don't think so, but the President could pardon them. This wouldn't prevent prosecution under state laws, but I'm not sure how effective that would be if the President ordered people to assassinate the state officials who attempted to enforce the state laws.

The question I'm kicking around in my own mind is what's to stop a future president from putting in place his own heavily armed security service that reports directly to the president? Basically, a modern version of the SS that does not take an oath to support the Constitution or to bear allegiance to anyone or anything other than the president. It would be his personal mob style hit squad.

I suspect there would be many who'd be willing to join if Trump wins the election, but there could be a maniac with maniacal followers from the other end of the political spectrum in the future.

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits use of the military in this way, but so what? The president would say his security group is not the military, and he can't be criminally prosecuted for violating the law anyway.

The militia clause of the Constitution says Congress has the power to call up militias, but the president could say his group is not a militia, and the Constitution doesn't say the president can't create a security service that reports directly to him.

The biggest hurdle I see is that criminal immunity requires an official act in the capacity as president, and it's not clear a president could set up a rogue hit squad and successfully convince a court that his control of the hit squad was an official act.

I haven't spent a lot time on this question. Hopefully I'm missing something.

This retired general poses the question regarding illegal orders. His stance is that you do not follow illegal orders, regardless of who issues them.

https://x.com/MarkHertling/status/1808132204650024977

But, of course, if POTUS insists on his orders being carried out, he could just go down the food chain until he finds someone who will follow them. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody like Flynn did just that. Whoever obeyed such an order is still sticking their neck out though. Once exposing themselves to possible prosecution, a POTUS would have a firm grip on their genitals.

 

[TankTop5]

This retired general poses the question regarding illegal orders. His stance is that you do not follow illegal orders, regardless of who issues them.

https://x.com/MarkHertling/status/1808132204650024977

But, of course, if POTUS insists on his orders being carried out, he could just go down the food chain until he finds someone who will follow them. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody like Flynn did just that. Whoever obeyed such an order is still sticking their neck out though. Once exposing themselves to possible prosecution, a POTUS would have a firm grip on their genitals.

Luckily the President doesn’t have the authority to do that and any order would be unconstitutional. Any member of the military that participated would be courtmartialed and put in front of a firing squad before breakfast.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Read oral arguments from SCOTUS decision and not just Sotomayor’s. That’s just not how it works. The president has to have constitutional authority, acting under an official capacity to have immunity. Last time I checked assassinating, political rivals is not a constitutional authority of the president. That said this specific Supreme Court ruling was bullshit for other reasons and way too of a political ruling. I think it will be reversed very quickly.

edited for grammar

Surely no President would use the military to kill a U.S. citizen. That would be ridiculous!

Other than the fact that it has already happened:

>>>The ACLU and CCR have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.

In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.<<<

ACLU & CCR Lawsuit: American Boy Killed By U.S. Drone Strike

The ACLU and CCR have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi...

www.aclu.org

What if the president asserts that a political rival is threat to national security? Is it not the president's sole responsibility to determine if a person is a threat to national security?

Who is going to charge the President? The ACLU case was dismissed for lack of standing. If the FBI investigates, the president can order the FBI to stop. If the DOJ brings charges, he can order them to drop the case. From the recent Trump case: "The Executive Branch has 'exclusive authority and absolute discretion' to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime." (emphasis added)

The recent Trump case says that motive does not matter, and in fact prohibits courts from even considering motive: "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. . . . Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law." (emphasis added)

From the Trump decision: "We conclude that . . . with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. . . . But once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination." (emphasis added)

If courts "may not inquire into the President’s motives" it seems to me it does not matter if a person was assassinated for political reasons or national security reasons. If a president asserts it was for national security reasons and courts are prohibited from evaluating motive, how can a president be charged?

A week ago I would have thought this type of a discussion was crazy.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Luckily the President doesn’t have the authority to do that and any order would be unconstitutional. Any member of the military that participated would be courtmartialed and put in front of a firing squad before breakfast.

No. The president would issue a pardon and order the investigation to stop.

You seem to think that others in the executive branch have power that is independent of the president. A magic 4th branch of some sort that sweeps in and saves everyone.

 

[GO-NAD!]

That’s an opinion of some legal experts, doesn’t mean it’s correct. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet. The President did not gain authority he did not possess before the ruling. All the ruling did was insulate the president from prosecution from actions taken while acting in his official constitutional authority. Killing Americans wasn’t legal before the decision and it didn’t magically become legal after.

Oddly enough people say stupid things

If a president is acting in his official constitutional authority, wouldn't such an act be legal by definition. What immunity from prosecution would he require?

Supreme Court’s Radical Immunity Ruling Shields Lawbreaking Presidents and Undermines Democracy | Brennan Center for Justice

From the link:

Presidents, the Court rules, “may not be prosecuted for exercising [their] core constitutional powers, and [are] entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for [their] official acts.” The Court notes that presidents “enjoy[] no immunity for [their] unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.”

The Court’s definition of “official acts” cuts extremely broadly, stretching to “the outer perimeter of [Trump’s] official responsibility.” (The Court refused to say exactly where that perimeter ends.) The prosecution must show that prosecuting Trump for those official acts “would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions” of the presidency (emphasis added). The prosecution won’t be able to claim an official act was “unofficial” because of the president’s motives for doing it.

 

[TankTop5]

Surely no President would use the military to kill a U.S. citizen. That would be ridiculous!

Other than the fact that it has already happened:

>>>The ACLU and CCR have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.

In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.<<<

ACLU & CCR Lawsuit: American Boy Killed By U.S. Drone Strike

The ACLU and CCR have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi...

www.aclu.org

What if the president asserts that a political rival is threat to national security? Is it not the president's sole responsibility to determine if a person is a threat to national security?

Who is going to charge the President? The ACLU case was dismissed for lack of standing. If the FBI investigates, the president can order the FBI to stop. If the DOJ brings charges, he can order them to drop the case. From the recent Trump case: "The Executive Branch has 'exclusive authority and absolute discretion' to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime." (emphasis added)

The recent Trump case says that motive does not matter, and in fact prohibits courts from even considering motive: "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. . . . Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law." (emphasis added)

From the Trump decision: "We conclude that . . . with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. . . . But once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination." (emphasis added)

If courts "may not inquire into the President’s motives" it seems to me it does not matter if a person was assassinated for political reasons or national security reasons. If a president asserts it was for national security reasons and courts are prohibited from evaluating motive, how can a president be charged?

A week ago I would have thought this type of a discussion was crazy.

I did already say that I disagree with the SCOTUS ruling and I believe it will be reversed quickly.

That killing was wrong but they also were acting on behalf of a designated terrorist organization in a foreign country and had participated in attacking US interests. That’s a world of difference from killing political opponents domestically. But yes it was still wrong.