Maggie's Farm

Does that mean the president can set up a sign in front of the White House selling pardons or nuclear secrets?


Even if true, that has nothing to do with the appeal concerning immunity and would apply to any defendant under the statute.

More important, Trump has argued that virtually any act under the color of presidential authority is immune from criminal sanction, including murdering political opponents or staging a coup. How could such an argument be taken seriously at the highest levels of the American judiciary?

James: Or how about the government's position that the DOJ, or any prosecutor should just be trusted to not engage in political decision making when determining if, or what someone should be prosecuted for?

No one should be beyond accountability. Federal prosecutions are subject to statutory, regulatory, judicial, and grand jury oversight. Why should it be different for Trump than any other defendant?

James: as Gorsuch noted, should Obama be tried for murder.

You aren’t being specific, but if an American citizen wages war or is a terrorist threat, and if that person is outside the reach of legal means of apprehension, then the United States has the right to neutralize (and if necessary kill) that person. A political opponent, no matter how corrupt or dangerous, is not outside the reach of the law.

James: Well, Zac, that sounds exactly like a situation that impeachment is intended to handle.

Well, James, that’s not a criminal prosecution.

James: What was your outrage level about Clintin enabling the transfer of technology to China that made their ICBMs much more accurate?

The technology transfer was incremental and didn’t affect the basic nuclear deterrent. There was a valid purpose, to balance Russia, to further integrate China into the world economy, and to provide economic benefits for the United States. Even if you argue it was unwise, it was a power congress granted the president.

James: Clintin granting pardons to clearly undeserving people who just happened to make a lot of political contributions to him and his allies?

It had the appearance of corruption, however, it lacked evidence of criminality.

James: Since she used a lawyer to pay for the fake Russian collusion document during her presidential campaign?

It wasn’t fake, but raw intelligence. New York law wouldn’t be applicable. Civil penalties were imposed by the FEC.

Notably, instead of responding, you diverted with “But her emails!” There were two questions in that comment and one in this comment.