General Discussion

ffr

(22,671 posts) Thu Oct 24, 2019, 01:04 PM Oct 2019

We Have Now Arrived At The Logical Endpoint Of Trump's Immunity Argument

I wasn’t expecting laughter in court today.

But at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, there were stifled chortles as personal attorneys for President Trump finally arrived at the logical destination of their argument that he is immune not only from prosecution – but from investigation.

It came in Trump’s appeal challenging a state grand jury subpoena for financial records from his longtime accounting firm, Mazars USA.

Manhattan District Attorney General Counsel Carrey Dunne told the appeals court that Trump was acting as if the law did not apply to him, and was trying to have it both ways by asserting executive protections over an investigation that concerned his private business.
<snip>

Judge Chin raised Dunne’s point. He asked Consovoy for his “view on the Fifth Avenue example.”

“Local authorities couldn’t investigate, they couldn’t do anything about it?” he asked.

“No,” replied a visibly annoyed Consovoy amid stifled chortles.

“Nothing could be done? That’s your position?” Chin repeated.

“That is correct, that is correct,” Consovoy responded, before qualifying it by saying that a president could be prosecuted after leaving office. - TPM

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We Have Now Arrived At The Logical Endpoint Of Trump's Immunity Argument (Original Post) ffr Oct 2019 OP

The reductio ad absurdum. coti Oct 2019 #1

So say Obama had just walked up to Donnie and shot him dead. unblock Oct 2019 #2

An example posited on Hartmann today: rurallib Oct 2019 #4

Additional questions for these jackass lawyers hvn_nbr_2 Oct 2019 #3

But SCOTUS still might side with Trump. Kablooie Oct 2019 #5

coti

(4,612 posts)

1. The reductio ad absurdum.

Reply to ffr (Original post)

Thu Oct 24, 2019, 01:25 PM

Oct 2019

OF COURSE the policy- written by an unelected DOJ employee- is ridiculous.

And that's one of the many issues with our democracy we need to clarify and fix once this shit is over. I get the feeling a whole lot of this wouldn't be happening if Trump understood that he could be immediately arrested.

unblock

(52,257 posts)

2. So say Obama had just walked up to Donnie and shot him dead.

Reply to ffr (Original post)

Thu Oct 24, 2019, 01:40 PM

Oct 2019

It's 2011 and Donnie just started with his birther crap. Let's say Obama had just plain killed Donnie for that.

Are they now saying that no one could even investigate that for 6 years until Obama was no longer president?

Yeah, I'm sure they'd be fine with that....

rurallib

(62,426 posts)

4. An example posited on Hartmann today:

Reply to unblock (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 24, 2019, 03:08 PM

Oct 2019

Biden is elected president. After he is sworn in he gets an Ar15 and goes over to the SCOTUS building. He then shoots the 5 conservative justices. Not only does he not get arrested, he gets to appoint the replacements.

hvn_nbr_2

(6,486 posts)

3. Additional questions for these jackass lawyers

Reply to ffr (Original post)

Thu Oct 24, 2019, 02:57 PM

Oct 2019

On the night that the other party's candidates are all gathered together for a debate, suppose the president ordered the Air Force to drop a nuclear bomb on the debate venue. Are you claiming that any investigation of it would be illegal?

Are you claiming that the impeachment investigations of Clinton, Nixon, and Johnson were all illegal because the president may not be investigated? Are you claiming that the Iran-Contra investigation was illegal because the president may not be investigated?

If the president became disenchanted with his lawyers and ordered them to be drawn and quartered in the White House basement, are you claiming that no investigation would be allowed?

Kablooie

(18,634 posts)

5. But SCOTUS still might side with Trump.

Reply to ffr (Original post)

Thu Oct 24, 2019, 03:08 PM

Oct 2019

I don't see how investigations could be prevented because the president can be impeached for high crimes, and to unearth a high crime an investigation would obviously be necessary but a strict originalist could say that there is no clause in the Constitution stating that the president can be criminally charged so therefore he can't be.

But if you're a Trump lawyer you could point out that murder is a very low crime and impeachment is only allowed for high crimes so murder doesn't apply.

Reply to this discussion