How does this make us look on the world stage?

[Mr.Bill]

I mean, think about it. Attorneys who are representing a former President are arguing in some of our highest courts that an American President has the authority to kill anyone he wants with no consequences. They didn't imply it, they came right out and said it.

The whole world is indeed watching.

[RockRaven]

1. Weak and feckless.

[Irish_Dem]

2. Makes our country look ignorant, arrogant and dangerous.

[ForgedCrank]

3. I listened

to the audio, that is not what they said.
What they are actually claiming is that a President must first be impeached and convicted by congress since that is the deciding process. They did not claim it could be done free from consequences.
Now, whether or not they are correct is another argument entirely, I personally don't know as I'm not a legal expert. But it seems to me that this will probably boil down in the end to deciding whether or not what he did was executed as part of an official action or not.

[Mr.Bill]

6. The ability to kill anybody he wants

kind of negates Congress as any sort of check and balance, since their members could also be killed to keep them from acting.

[Whiskeytide]

23. Yeah. Kind of hard to get House members to vote to ...

… impeach and Senators to vote to convict a president who is using Seal Team 6 to rub out his political enemies.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. That's not what I got from this exchange betwen Judge Pan and Sauer.

"I asked you a yes or no question," the judge said. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"

"If he were impeached and convicted first, and so — " Sauer began.

"So your answer is no," Pan said.

[ForgedCrank]

11. Well that

is the problem. That is not a "yes or no" question and it cannot be honestly answered that way.
The judge was asking the question using an extreme example for clarification purposes. But the way the question was delivered, one could never be expected to answer with a simple yes or no, because it could be either correct or incorrect depending on circumstances.
That would be like asking "So, if your car ran into someone and they died, you would be guilty of first degree murder, right? Yes or no?"
Same thing, that is not a yes or no question, it can't be with that amount of information alone. A lot more information and circumstances need to be established in order to answer to be accurate.
I can't believe I'm even having to argue about this.

[dpibel]

13. It's a yes/no as Trump has framed it

Sauer said repeatedly that impeachment and conviction is a predicate to criminal prosecution.

The necessary correlate of that is that, absent impeachment and conviction, no criminal prosecution.

I don't think you can parse it any other way.

It's a clear yes or no question.

What are these circumstances you believe muddy the waters? Sauer was clear and emphatic about the necessity of impeachment. Where's your wiggle room?

On edit: I can't believe you're making the argument you're making.

[PortTack]

18. Judge Pan gave this example because she straight up asked the attorney a simple yes or no question SEVERAL

Times and all she got was hyperbole trump style. So she gave him this example about SEAL team 6 and ended it with “your answer is no?” Then after himming and hawing he said it was a “qualified yes.”

[Bev54]

17. They tried at first to say that until the Judge made them concede that there had to be some consequences

The problem is, that screwed up their whole argument that the president has full immunity. Talked themselves right into a corner.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Wait until our esteemed Supreme Court confirms it.

[IcyPeas]

7. It worked for Mohammed bin Salman

[BootinUp]

9. And the courts will shoot it down, because its just more crazy politics in court

instead of sound legal arguments.

Politics can get a little crazy, especially with the out-of-control propaganda from Russia, China, and crypto-tech billionaires who are enemies of democracy.

Trump hasn't won an election since 2016, after his next loss Trumpism will have a short life in Presidential politics.

[Mr.Bill]

12. We can only hope a whole lot

of republicans in Congress go down with it. On the state level, too.

[PortTack]

19. Yes, and most of the legal pundits think SCOTUS may just kick it away because of it's ridiculousness

SCOTUS maybe be conservative..but they like their power and are not complete and utter fools

[Poiuyt]

10. We'll look fine as long as Biden wins

If Trump wins, however, we'll be looked upon the same way that other fascist countries are looked upon.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Hey, if it's good enough for Putin...

[Bayard]

15. We looked a lot worse when he was representing us around the world

[PortTack]

21. Indeed! all of the free world is happy to have President Biden ...and have said so

[LudwigPastorius]

16. We lost any moral high ground long, long ago. (if we ever had it at all)

The rest of the world has been way ahead of us in questioning and rejecting American exceptionalism.

[AverageOldGuy]

20. No one has asked me, but . . .

. . . I think President Biden should go ahead, order SEAL Team 6 to take out Trump, and dare anyone to do anything about it.

I predict there would be celebrations across the land.

[PortTack]

22. For stinkamus to reverse the order and understand what he's asking...a bridge too far

But I completely agree with you. The world will be a better safer place when he’s dead.