Did Trumps lawyer really just argue in court that Trump could murder someone and not be charged?

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

A lawyer representing Trump (in the case over the release og his tax returns) just argued that Trump is immune from investigation, indictment, and prosecution for murder while he is President.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1187023407352877056 (the audio from the courtroom in video format).

I’m curious…Anyone want to go on the record and say they agree?

The only CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY for any president’s lawlessness is impeachment. Otherwise, the President CANNOT be indicted or prosecuted under penal law until AFTER leaving office. What about the Constitution is it that has you confused, CSB?

1 Like

I challenge you to find the section of the Constitution that says the ONLY “REMEDY for any president’s lawlessness is impeachment”.

Furthermore, I gave you three different things that Trump’s lawyers are claiming the President is immune from while in office:

  1. Investigation
  2. Indictment (indictments can be sealed - something I assume you know)
  3. Prosecution

So you’ve given me an opinion on one, how about the other 2?

After what Adam Schiff and the rest of the pond scum that makes up the rest of your sorry political party, nothing that the Trump lawyers might say would be out of bounds. Why can’t you people wait until 2020? Are you snowflakes afraid of what might happen?

If this makes you angry, that’s good because what your party are doing is beyond belief. It shows that selling your brand of socialism is a hard sell. None of your Democrat candidates are worthy of the White House, and none of them can sell the garbage you are offering. All you can do is call for impeachment.

Why don’t you write an essay on the virtues of socialism and then we can have an honest discussion?

His lawyers are NOT claiming he’s immune from “investigation”…just that he cannot be compelled to cooperate with any such “investigation.” He cannot be “indicted” either until AFTER leaving the presidency. Read something sometime.

What everyone needs to keep in mind about the Adam Schiff “investigation” is that the assumption is “guilty until proven “guilty. This is a star chamber plain and simple. There is no objectivity and no desire to get to the truth.

To put it in historical terms, it’s like the dunking trials the Puritans held in New England. If the accused woman floated, she was guilty and was hanged. (They didn’t burn people at the stake because the Catholic Queen Mary had done that, and they didn’t want to copy her.) If she sank and drowned, she was innocent. Boo-boo, we made a mistake. Next victim!!! … Ah … next accused defendant !

If we had treated Obama the way Trump has been treated, we would have spent two years harassing him with questions about his birth. Along the way we could prosecuted and jailed anyone who had a senior position in his campaign for anything they had ever done in his or her life.

When that was done, with Obama established as a legitimate president, he might have thought it was over, but no. Now we would look into the real estate deal for his house in Chicago. And when that didn’t stick we could go after him for his whispered comments to a Russian diplomat that, he would have more flexibility to make deals with Putin once the election was over.

Do you get drift, Mr. Brown? Two could play at this dirty game, and it’s going to tear this country apart. I am sick of it. The next time one of you people ask, “Why can’t we just get along?” you have your answer.

That’s an emotional answer and it really speaks to what “your side” is feeling right now.

No, it’s a truthful answer, Mr. Brown. After your party lost the 2016, the leadership, spearheaded by rogue elements in the Justice Department and FBI, set out to do all they could remove Trump from office. Failing that, they would set out to make so he could not do his job. That met these people would rather see the country fail than have it succeed under a man who advocated policies with which they disagreed.

Your party wants to turn this country into a one party police state. Pelosi and Schumer will not compromise on anything. They won’t even vote on the trade agreement that Trump forged with Canada and Mexico, despite the fact that Americans would benefit, because they don’t want to give him a victory.

Emotional? You damn right I am. I love and respect freedom and have studied enough history to how important it is to improving the human condition. Your party has gone off the rails with its advocacy of totalitarian rule.

If you think I’m crazy, read “The Green New Deal.” It is the prime roadmap to serfdom. It is the new Communist Manifesto. It will stifle innovation and bring poverty and depredation to millions. In the mean time a small elite, like the leadership in North Korea and Red China will live well with a large police force to the people in line.

That’s what your party has in mind, Mr. Brown, and unless you think you are a part of that elite group, you would do well to rethink you position.

This is not like the old days when it was Barry Goldwater versus Hubert Humphrey. It’s now Donald Trump versus Karl Marx.

oh wow…projection. The left is the entity that keeps this going…and it was promised the night that Mr. Trump won. The left has come up with one stupid, illegitimate, laughable, vague charge right after the other. There is no end in sight. As sick as I am of the left, I will not relent and let them destroy this president that I voted for, this system of government, this country. The left gloms onto one word one phrase and it is taken out of context and then run into the ground. I will continue to hope that YOU, Mr csb will come to your senses and see what the left is doing to this country.

1 Like

WRONG. That’s exactly what they are arguing. Listen to the 25-second audio I supplied in the OP. They are saying that he is immune from investigation while President.

Here’s the exchange:

Judge Denny Chin pressed Consovoy [a lawyer for Trump] about the hypothetical shooting in the middle of Manhattan.
Local authorities couldn’t investigate? They couldn’t do anything about it?” he asked, adding, “Nothing could be done? That is your position?”
“That is correct,” Consovoy answered emphasizing that the immunity applied only while Trump is in office.

[emphisis mine]

So the President is suspected of shooting someone and he can’t be indicted (or investigated) until removed from office. If the President clearly committed crimes, he’d have every incentive to corrupt anyone and everyone he could to prevent his ultimate possible criminal investigation and indictment.

This all a BS sideshow from Mr. Brown because he is unwilling or unable to discuss the real issues. This is an example of the smokescreens the left loves to puff up so that they can avoid the real issues and the goals of their policies.

1 Like

I’m not “the left” any more than you are “the right”. When I talk to you I address what you say not what I perceive “your side” thinks. Sorry, but I have more respect for you and others than to argue my perception of what you believe because (I assume) some/ most of what you believe is consistent whit Conservative thinking.

This is the problem of a lot of people (left or right). They are too busy “projecting” what they think those that they disagree with, think.

Sendgop’s answer didn’t address me, he projected upon me an entire ideology without talking to me.

Tump’s reputation preceded him. that’s what happens when a man of extremely low character and morals is elected President. You reap what you sew and all.

The defense that some people have tried to offer here is that what Trump did before he was President didn’t matter. But that’s the worst kind of rationalizing I’ve ever seen and doesn’t pass the smell test.

I will assume you have have kids. If a teacher had a questionable background, before they were a teacher I assume you’d consider that when allowing your children to attend class.

no, not the “left”. If you believe that, you need to take your head out of the sand. People appointed by Trump, people who have spent their careers representing both parties, people of impeccable credentials and accomplishments. If by t"the left" you mean anyone what would accuse Trump of wrongdoing, well, if I have to explain to you the problem with that, well, I can’t help you.

The Trump is doing that on his own, the left is just attempting to hold him accountable.

I’m not here to defend “the left” whatever that means. I find that identification with groups that large is unwise. I share some common ideas with people who affiliate with the left and reject others. Same with the right, though to a lesser degree. Of course, you need to talk with me not at me to really understand.

-Cheers Caroline.

I am sure the left would like to make The President suffer, and his family, after he leaves office. But they really want to make Trump voters suffer and they’ve got the apparatus in place to do that if we are so unlucky and stupid to ever put a democrat in the white house again. They do sufficient damage to the America people just sitting in Congress.

The left has failed in every attempt to destroy this president. Indeed his support is growing. And they will be unsuccessful in destroying this president after he leaves office. They ARE however destroying themselves.

A President claiming (or a lawyer representing him) that he is immune from investigation, indictment and prosecution of literally any crime within the legal system as long as he is president is “a sideshow”.

We all wish we had a time machine, but boy would I have liked to have gone back to an alternate reality where Bill Clinton had claimed he was immune as long as he was President and get your reaction to that.

We have the reactions of about (a dozen?) Republican members of Congress to the proceedings that took place at the time. Would you like me to find the footage that contrasts their positions then and now?

Oh wait, it’s just a sideshow…/rolls eyes

I’m not “the left”. Stop projecting, please.

your post is a perfect example of the deception of the left. WHERE in that audio you posted did this lawyer specifically say that Mr. Trump could shoot someone on fifth avenue and get away with it.

You failed in that. I understand the argument. And the left knows the argument is correct. Obama and the Clintons certainly got away with plenty while in office and they’ve never faced justice.

Your side starts doing this…especially when this president is innocent of all your false and fantastic charges and we’ll just see how that works for Barry Soetero Obama and Hilliary CLinton. There were a few murders associated with each of these corrupt, vile people.

1 Like

Nobody has said that the President CAN’T be investigated while in office. If that were true, a bunch of Democrats would already be serving time, including Nadler, Schiff and a host of others. He just cannot be either indicted or arrested while serving in the Presidency. Clinton wasn’t indicted, arrested or charged with any crime while in office except via the impeachment process…which WAS for crimes he committed while president. He was sued in federal court for something he did PRIOR to his election. HIS mistake was to commit perjury, suborn perjury and tamper with evidence and witnesses WHILE being sued and WHILE serving in office.

Still not “the left” Caroline.

By deception, you mean that “Trump could shoot someone on 5th ave” was something that I made up? Or are you saying that, because I didn’t include something that was said is somehow dishonest?

Honestly, I looked for brief audio so FC could listen if he wanted to. I know his internet is very slow, so I was trying to be respectful of him.

That said, are you going to apologize to me accusing me of deception when I provide you with the full context of the conversation between Judge Denny Chin and Trump’s lawyer, Consovoy?

Acctually, I don’t need an apology, I would just like you to admit that you were wrong and that my comments haven’t been an effort to deceive, but simply have a conversation with people, like yourself, who hold a different point-of-view.

Course, you could have avoided the false accusation if you had just asked, "In the context of the conversation was Trump shooting someone, is that the part in the first 5 seconds of the clip you provided where the Judge asks “What’s your view on the 5th Avenue example”

Now you could hang on the “wherein that clip”, noting that the part about the shooting wasn’t included, and that’s true, though if you aren’t familiar with Trump’s statement during his campaign that he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it, I’d simply ask, where have you been? A casual Google search or a simple question could have clarified that it was, indeed, part of the context of the question, so the accusation that I was being deceptive was, at best ignorance, at worst, manipulative on your part.

Here are the entire 2 hours of oral arguments. I’ll spare you the time and give you the point at which the context of the question comes from (though you should listen to the whole thing, it’s acctually very interesting):

The actual statement about "shooting on 5th Ave comes at 42:30 (the relevant content ends at 43:10), but since you’re such a stickler for context, I went back to the beginning of the lawyer’s statement. And please, don’t dismiss the “NBC News is a left-wing…blah, blah”…This is direct unedited audio. There is no media or political commentary, it’s just courtroom audio.

Ok, so that establishes the context of the audio I included in my OP which is part of the audio included as part of the link above.

Here, from the same proceeding is Judge Chin following up on what is in the OP.

Caroline, the only failure, one that could have been avoided if you did a little research or simply asked me, is yours.

Don’t have “a side”

That’s what needed to be adjudicated, but the President is claiming vis-a-vis his lawyers, is that he is immune from investigation and prosecution, regardless of when or what happened,

Yes, that’s been alleged, and I’ll concede that past Presidents and politicians have probably said and done things they have not been heald accountable for, but that is the issue at point.

That is EXACTLY what is at issue. Trump’s lawyers are stating EXACTLY that. I’ve included the oral arguments above. Take a listen, tell me that’s not what’s being argued.

Again that’s what Trump’s lawyers are arguing in court trying to prevent states from investigating the President. The case hinges on whether the states have the right to investigate. In the context of the OP, the claim is, if the President shot someone and only local law enforcement were present, they could do NOTHING about it.

They’d have no right to arrest him, investigate, indict or prosecute. Now before you start creating your own hypotheticals where here is clearly some boundaries to what kinds of litigation that the President could be subject to (like being asked to divulge national security secrets as part of a trial), I’m not denying that. Simply saying that freedom from arrest, investigation, indictment etc. isn’t absolute.

Clinton never sent a lawyer into court claiming that he was immune from that process, at least that I’m aware of and certainly NEVER claimed that Clinton could shoot someone and not be subject to state prosecution and investigation.

Yes and interestingly, the records being subpoenaed in this case are also from a period prior to Trump’s Presidency.

Many Republicans at the time felt that he should be, right?

And it appears (allegedly) we have some of the same going on today either directly or indirectly by those acting with Trump’s knowledge.

Now you’re going to offer yourself and other Trump supports as martyrs?

We’ve reached a new low :roll_eyes: