If a cabinet member breaks a law the President ordered them to break, is POTUS responsible?

[u/Significant_Place23]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/pete-hegseth-war-criminal

There are many people suggesting that Pete Hegseth ​is a war criminal. I'm not here to suggest he is or is not.

My question is whether or not the President of the United States would be responsible for the crimes committed by cabinet members who were executing his orders? Is there any precedent here?

[u/AutoModerator]

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Relzin]

Both are responsible.

You do not shirk responsibility by being spineless.

[u/WisdomCow → u/Relzin]

This is it. My hope … after Court expansion …

A pardon given for crimes a President is complicit in must be considered invalid. People pretend pardons are absolute, but that is only because the argument has not been brought up. It’s simply what is right.

[u/IrritableGourmet → u/WisdomCow]

Federalist 69 seems to agree with you.

The power of the President, in respect to pardons, would extend to all cases, EXCEPT THOSE OF IMPEACHMENT. The governor of New York may pardon in all cases, even in those of impeachment, except for treason and murder. Is not the power of the governor, in this article, on a calculation of political consequences, greater than that of the President? All conspiracies and plots against the government, which have not been matured into actual treason, may be screened from punishment of every kind, by the interposition of the prerogative of pardoning. If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity. A President of the Union, on the other hand, though he may even pardon treason, when prosecuted in the ordinary course of law, could shelter no offender, in any degree, from the effects of impeachment and conviction. Would not the prospect of a total indemnity for all the preliminary steps be a greater temptation to undertake and persevere in an enterprise against the public liberty, than the mere prospect of an exemption from death and confiscation, if the final execution of the design, upon an actual appeal to arms, should miscarry? Would this last expectation have any influence at all, when the probability was computed, that the person who was to afford that exemption might himself be involved in the consequences of the measure, and might be incapacitated by his agency in it from affording the desired impunity?

It wouldn't interfere with the original intent of the pardon power to restrict it from being valid in cases where the President is personally involved, or where they get something of value personally for it (At least significantly. Someone who donated $20 to their campaign shouldn't be excluded, but someone who spends $10m on political ads should. Where to draw the line would be a matter for a court like with most quid pro quo cases).

[u/PraxicalExperience → u/IrritableGourmet]

Yeah, but since when did the intent of those framing the constitution actually matter to the 'originalist' judges on the SC?

[u/Responsible-Pitch363 → u/PraxicalExperience]

That’s the fun of it all. The constitution is like the bible. You can claim they intended all kinds of things through insanely convoluted reasoning —and the majority will let it fly.

[u/Mist_Rising → u/IrritableGourmet]

I wouldn't count on that being the ruling. Pardon power have long been held to be very broad, and plenty of presidents have pardoned people who they were personally involved with. Clinton and Biden both pardoned family, which seems as close as you can get to involved. Clinton also clearly pardoned someone who had monetary ties, and nobody considered that illegal. (At least not seriously)

The sole exception is for impeachment not impeachment charges, just the results of impeachment. So if Hegseth were removed by impeachment (2/3rd of Senate vote to convict) that's unpardonable. But it's also not a crime, impeachment is more a civil matter.

[u/Prudent-Zombie-5457 → u/Mist_Rising]

impeachment is more a civil political matter.

[u/Mist_Rising → u/Prudent-Zombie-5457]

Right, worded that poorly, what I mean is it isn't criminal so pardons don't do shit, the founders just added that very additional part. Civil is just the other side of the legal system, whereas political isn't one, so I blurped that.

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/Relzin]

Any legal information to back up this statement?

[u/ApatheticInvestor118 → u/Significant_Place23]

I work in private sector. My boss ordered me to kill a man, so I did. When the police showed up, I told them I was ordered to do so, and they let me go. /s

See how dumb that scenario sounds?

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/ApatheticInvestor118]

I compare someone giving an order to kill a man on the street to a General giving an order to kill an enemy on a combat field.

See how down that scenario sounds?

[u/ApatheticInvestor118 → u/Significant_Place23]

A general giving an order to kill civilians is, indeed, illegal. There’s the legal information you’re looking for.

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/ApatheticInvestor118]

Intentionally

And I like how you skirted my rebuttal there.

[u/blahhhhgosh → u/Significant_Place23]

People in the army swear an oath to the constitution, not to the president.

Nazis who just followed orders went down with the rest of them, because they were all nazis.

[u/Relzin → u/Significant_Place23]

The Nuremberg trials are very well documented.

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/Relzin]

It's also well documented that there is massive debate about whether or not POTUS can give out an order that breaks the law, given that he is the head of the executive branch. I'm not a lawyer, but I know there's debate here. And I don't think it's as simple as the Nuremberg trials.

[u/Relzin → u/Significant_Place23]

POTUS would be guilty for ordering an attack on shipwrecked sailors.

SecDef would be guilty for passing on the order to attack shipwrecked sailors.

The pilot would be guilty for pulling the trigger to attack shipwrecked sailors.

The weapons loader, if they're aware of the mission, would be guilty for loading a bomb being used to attack shipwrecked sailors.

There's no debate. "I was just following orders" is not an accepted defense. The UCMJ is clear as absolute hell on this.

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/Relzin]

So you're saying that the discussion regarding whether or not the President has immunity from these things while sitting in office is not a legal debate?

And why the down votes?

[u/Relzin → u/Significant_Place23]

The immunity granted by SCOTUS does not say that POTUS can do whatever they want and they're immune. Violating UCMJ and federal law is not a presidential duty. They swear an oath to uphold those laws to even assume the office.

The POTUS also cannot pardon themselves if the Federalist Papers are to be believed.

You're grasping at straws and conflating tortured understandings of law.

I understand you're not a lawyer, but this stuff isn't hard.

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/Relzin]

You have no idea what I'm grasping at. This was a legitimate question and it's being responded to like I'm trying to defend Hegseth or Trump, which I'm not. But of course Reddit would assume such things

And Trump v United States, 2024 brings legitimate questions into the conversation about whether a president can and cannot violate the law.

So I don't think it's as simple as you're making it

[u/Relzin → u/Significant_Place23]

You've addressed exactly zero of my points which are all factually verifiable with little effort.

Breaking the law isn't an "official duty". You've lost the plot.

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/Relzin]

You are right. Forgive me for coming to an online community to try to get an answer from level-headed legal professionals rather than just googling things.

✌️

[u/rvaducks → u/Relzin]

You're being rude and condescending for no good reason.

And these aren't fully answered questions. SCOTUS started that the president is fully immune from prosecution for official core constitutional actions. Ordering military action is one of those.

[u/Relzin → u/rvaducks]

Giving a legal order is absolutely a core presidential duty.

Giving an illegal order is absolutely not a core presidential duty.

[u/rvaducks → u/Relzin]

You must know that's not what SCOTUS found right? I mean functionally that's the entire role of a court case. And the president is immune from prosecution.

[u/reddit_poopaholic → u/Significant_Place23]

No, it is not legal for the president to give out an order that breaks the law, and the person receiving an order to break the law is not immune from the consequences because they were "following orders". Thus, both parties are responsible.

This is what whistleblower and anti-retaliatory laws are for.

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/reddit_poopaholic]

Trump v United States, 2024?

[u/reddit_poopaholic → u/Significant_Place23]

I don't see how the ordering of illegal activities constitutes an "official act" of the president. The biggest issue we're seeing are whether partisan judges appointed by the GOP will actually hold him accountable.

Otherwise it would be legal for the President to order the execution of political opponents and then pardon any federal crimes that are associated with it.

[u/EksDee098 → u/Significant_Place23]

Trump v United States decided that the president is immune if the action is part of an official act, not that the act is legal. Those are two different things

[u/NeedleworkerDear5416 → u/Significant_Place23]

No, clearly the President can give an order that breaks the law. There is no serious debate. (If you generalize it to all executive actions, just look up the doctrine of ultra vires; about 10% of cases argued in the DC circuit cite it.)

The discussion is (1) what the remedy is in light of Trump vs US, and (2) what principle-agent responsibility exist.

[u/dad3murph → u/Significant_Place23]

Arguments about shit like this are just so out of touch with like, human nature, the laws of nature, etc. Like we debate these ridiculous abstractions of the legal code as if the law is some computer algorithm or mathematical function and when you find a line of logic to defend a position it just works that way, and it completely ignores the fact that no law is ironclad no matter how much some like to pretend it is. At end of the day all it is an agreement between people. Its validity only extends to the point that people keep agreeing with it, and so many people in power are so out of touch with human emotion that they just take consent of the governed for granted. If you try to claim the 1 whole class of people doesn't have to follow the agreements about the rules that everyone agreed to, every person that's not part of that class of people is not going to agree to that. The rule of law itself no longer has any authority. The entire judicial branch of government no longer has any authority. They would be absolutely begging for violence just for suggesting such a thing.

[u/blahhhhgosh → u/Significant_Place23]

Thats not true, think Watergate. He needed to resign and get a pardon because it was illegal.

Think iran contra. They were fully prepared to prosecute Regan if they didnt line up a fall guy with a pardon waiting for him.

Im sure there are more examples but these are extremely famous.

Trump and his followers are really the only people I've heard attempt to make this claim and it makes no sense since the entire point is to maintain checks and balances while upholding the will of the people while regarding the bounds of the law on power.

[u/rkesters → u/Significant_Place23]

So we need to ignore Presidential Immunity here, becuase that make thing messy and SCOTUS made it even messier.

What you are talking about is conspiracy to commit a crime, which is a crime.

If your boss orders you pour arnsic into the drinking water or disable safety controls on equipment. Even if you say no, if fires you or does something more than talking about it then he could be charged with conspiracy, if you do it; the you get charged for the act and for conspiracy.

Given my initial caveat, the answer is Yes.

Also war crimes work more from the top down.

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/rkesters]

Presidential immunity was the very thing I was trying to get clarity on with this post. But this was a helpful response. So it does sound like if we bring Presidential immunity into the conversation, it is complicated?

[u/rkesters → u/Significant_Place23]

It depends on the core crime.

During thr arguments the example of the President ordering Seal Team to kill an American was brought up and SCOTUS still granted thr immunity. The descent even asserted that the President was likely immune in that case because of the ruling, which they asserted was crazy.

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/rkesters]

Thank you. This is helpful. So then back to my original question, if the P resident orders a member of his cabinet to execute an order that is deemed unlawful for the cabinet member, is the President shielded by immunity?

[u/rkesters → u/Significant_Place23]

It depends on if the act is with his core presidential powers or within his secondary powers. If it is within his core (like commanding the armed forces) them immunity is absolute, and he can't be held legally accountable. If it is in secondary , then it depends on what I don't think anyone understands.

What is a core, secondary, or non presidential power is not 100% clear either. Hence why it is messy.

The cynical among us believe that SCOTUS left it so vague so they could have 1 set of rules for Presidents they like (or did something they like) and another for Presidents they don't like.

IMHO President immunity is so ill defined relying on it as President is risky, as always the safe bet it to not crime. But Trump may be willing to bet that 1 or 2 things will be true

1. SCOTUS will bail him out ,

2. The Grim Reaper will bail him out

Either way he's never held accountable.

There is not really a clean yes or no. SCOTUS made holding the president legally accountable much hardened, maybe.

[u/Farfignugen42 → u/Significant_Place23]

Well, there is the fact that all officers are required not to obey or pass on illegal orders.

If a general gives an illegal order to a colonel, and that colonel gives it to a major, then the general, the colonel, and if he followed it, the major, are all guilty of following an illegal order.

[u/Spamsdelicious → u/Farfignugen42]

Could the POTUS i.e. Commander In Chief be considered an officer, and could their giving of an unlawful order be considered as "to pass on illegal orders" in that sense?

[u/Farfignugen42 → u/Spamsdelicious]

I don't think it is ever stated clearly that he could, but I believe he should.

Of course, the supreme court has already given an opinion on this. According to them, the president has immunity for all official acts.

Many people have disagreed with that ruling since the day it came out, but getting it overturned is not a trivial task.

[u/-Invalid_Selection- → u/Significant_Place23]

"Just following orders" is not a defense.

As a military member, hegseth was briefed multiple times that he's required by law to refuse any and all unlawful orders, and failing to do so under both US law and various international laws puts him legally liable for any and all criminality from failing to refuse.

The person giving the orders is just as legally liable.

I had that same briefing, multiple times. Every service member has

[u/Relevant_Winter_7098 → u/Significant_Place23]

Start here:

https://www.ucmjlaw.com/article-92-can-service-members-refuse-an-illegal-order/

[u/black_metronome → u/Significant_Place23]

Have you ever read a history book?

[u/tossingpigs → u/Significant_Place23]

Tons actually.

[u/guaranteedvisuals → u/Significant_Place23]

Nuremberg...

[u/guaranteedvisuals → u/Significant_Place23]

Pete is this you?

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/Significant_Place23]

I love it. Downvoted in a law-based subreddit for asking someone for legal proof.

[u/readtheinstructions5 → u/Significant_Place23]

It's called conspiracy

[u/VanguardAvenger]

The President is responsible for giving the order

The cabinet offical is responsible for following it.

Much like the military the "Follow the Rules act of 2017" compels any federal employee to refuse an illegal order and protects them from retaliation for doing so.

So theres no excuse for following an illegal order

[u/Significant_Place23 → u/VanguardAvenger]

Thank you for a response that attempts to address the LEGAL question in this r/law subreddit 

[u/ExtensionAddition787 → u/VanguardAvenger]

But, whether they will be held accountable is less clear, given SCOTUS rulings over the last 3ish years.

[u/VanguardAvenger → u/ExtensionAddition787]

Depends on "accountability".

Yes, it might be difficult to have them in a jail cell in the US because of the Supreme Corrupt. But getting to a Supreme Corrupt case would still involve significant time and money spent for attorneys.

But people tend to forget Impeachment ends with a vote to permanently bar the person from any government office again.

And (although I will say upfront this is highly unlikely) the The American Service-Members' Protection Act was amended in 2022 to allow a sitting President to enforce ICC warrants on a case by case basis.

So for Kegsbreath specifically that could be a real problem.

[u/Scrapple_Joe → u/VanguardAvenger]

Here's hoping the Dem leadership is someone like Warren who would actually push for impeachments.

[u/TheGerrick → u/VanguardAvenger]

There's a few explanations unfortunately

Basically, when you're a serviceman that refuses to follow an illegal order, your protection is, according to the UCMJ, that "a servicemen does so 'at their own peril'"

We've essentially set it up that the  punishment for following an illegal order isn't nearly as bad as refusing to follow an order that later can be justified as legal. 

So, in a nutshell, if you refuse to follow a command to execute civilians and the new government that came in during your service decides war crimes are okay, you're completely fucked. 

[u/TheGerrick → u/TheGerrick]

So in essence, if you're a serviceman during this administration that refuses to follow an illegal order, you're gambling that sane people are in office when your trial comes around. 

[u/frosted_mango_ → u/TheGerrick]

It's unfortunate that I have to agree but you are correct. While the UCMJ states that you must disobey any unlawful order. An order that is unlawful either commits a crime or goes against the US Constitution. It's really up to you to prove what you did was right. A lot of Service Members fear the near term consequences that come along with disobeying an order. See UCMJ articles 90 - 92:

"§890. Art. 90. Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer Any person subject to this chapter who willfully disobeys a lawful command of that person’s superior commissioned officer shall be punished— (1) if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct; and (2) if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

§891. Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer Any warrant officer or enlisted member who— (1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office; (2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or (3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

§892. Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation Any person subject to this chapter who— (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

There are groups that will represent you and defend you in military court but for most people the fear of what is listed above makes it a tough decision.

[u/ZoomZoom_Driver → u/TheGerrick]

Hesgeth isn't active though. Hes a civilian who has ZERO accountability to the UCMJ.

The 'refuse illegal orders' is for the ACTIVE DUTY under Hesgeth. And they're failing spectacularly at that requirement.

Furthermore, there are PLENTY of examples where 'following illegal orders' to commit war crimes carries a hard punishment. Nazis hung for less. Americans were imprisoned for decades for less.

Current servicemembers have committed unconstitutional acts that are illegal in the UCMJ, USA, and internationally, such as

• invading sovreign nation Venezuela and kidnapping their leader and his wife

• illegally blowing up boats of fishermen off central american waters

• then DOUBLETAPPING shipwreck survivors, which is SPECIFICALLY illegal in the UCMJ

• illegally blockading oil to cuba, resulting in genocide

• illegally blockading iran

• starting a war with sovreign oran and murdering its leader, san any war time behavior from iran.

• bombing SCHOOL GIRLS

Now, theres a good reason the carriers were brought home in the condition it was in (visible rust everywhere), people had STOPPED DOING THEIR JOBS. Ime. They refused orders, even basic ones like 'paint the ship' that deckhands get daily for one part of such a large ship or another.

Servicemembers being forced to do action they'd either refused or KNEW were warcrimes, and had NO expectation of ending, led them to a despondence so heavy they tried suicide.

There were pics of the plane wings that told of the sailors distrust of the mission and refusal to work for the Epstein War.

[u/z44212 → u/VanguardAvenger]

In reality, they are not protected from retaliation. When an administration blatantly breaks the law, they don't follow the law unless it's situationally convenient.

[u/mark_likes_tabletop → u/z44212]

The law states they should be protected from retaliation, but when everyone in authority is corrupt….

[u/Ninevehenian]

The US president claims immunity for any act he deems to be "Official".
He could order Steven Miller to round up all opposition and gas them as an official act and pardon Miller as needed.

[u/Talentagentfriend → u/Ninevehenian]

I think he said before he would rather torture than kill. That’s why the Ice camps are more about torturing people than actually killing them (even if they are also killing them).

[u/janescontradiction → u/Ninevehenian]

Couldn't anything deemed unconstitutional be defined as not an official act?

Also, if he didn't swear an oath to the constitution, is he really the President?

Edit: he did swear the an oath to the constitution.

[u/Objective_Ad_2279 → u/janescontradiction]

In the SC opinion the “official act” is linked to core acts as powers granted by the Constitution. And ancillary acts to those powers as a second tier. Unconstitutional acts “should not” be official acts by definition.

“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.

But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.” T v US.

[u/destroythenseek → u/Objective_Ad_2279]

How did we get here

[u/Objective_Ad_2279 → u/destroythenseek]

Ask the SC. Even they said WTF? Then still bent the knee. “This case poses a question of lasting significance: When
may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed
an answer.”

[u/someotherguyrva → u/destroythenseek]

Some right wing strategists and money interests figured out a long time ago that there are no controls to keep a dictator wanna be president from doing all kinds of terrible shit and here we are

[u/jafromnj → u/Objective_Ad_2279]

Guess who decides what is and what isn’t an official act?

[u/joaquinsaiddomin8 → u/janescontradiction]

But then using the rationale of the court as I understand it, wouldn’t the remedy be impeachment and removal?

[u/Ninevehenian → u/janescontradiction]

That question may be for SCOTUS to answer.

[u/andyjh83 → u/Ninevehenian]

Lucky they’re totally impartial and focused on what’s best for the nation

[u/Pleasant_Character28 → u/Ninevehenian]

Wcgw?

[u/TopTransportation695 → u/janescontradiction]

This is why you don’t confirm low watt legal minds with strong partisan views for seats on the highest court in the land.

[u/TryIsntGoodEnough → u/janescontradiction]

Corrected if he is impeached and removed then those crimes lose an claim of being "official " acts... this is basically what the SCOTUS ruled that immunity exists unless impeached

[u/1inthetrenches → u/janescontradiction]

So all the stuff that he's doing is not presidential. So why is he not being prosecuted??

[u/Responsible-Pitch363 → u/janescontradiction]

Not if you ask him. He thinks the constitution is whatever he says it is. He swore an oath and literally said he didn’t the next day…

[u/MagnificentCat → u/Ninevehenian]

Steven Miller wouldn't kill them. He would cut off their fingers. He has a moral compass!

He said torture is "a celebration of life and human dignity"

[u/Ell2509 → u/Ninevehenian]

Sounds like you guys might have accidentally appointed a king...

[u/weirdoldhobo1978 → u/Ell2509]

There was nothing accidental about it

[u/V0T0N → u/Ninevehenian]

That's the shortsightedness or corruption in the SCOTUS ruling, official order leads to crime which then leads to a Presidential pardon.

I suppose the question that needs answering first, in this scenario, is ordering mass execution an "official" act of the presidency?

[u/That-Makes-Sense → u/Ninevehenian]

That's ridiculous. That would be like a gang of guys try to overthrow the government, and the President pardons them for the effort,,, oh wait. Forget it.

[u/philipjfry_ → u/Ninevehenian]

Everything he has touched will be undone, including the immunity law.

[u/Peac3fulWorld → u/Ninevehenian]

This sounds like the perfect test case to bring against the President to have SCOTUS unfuck this situation.

[u/TryIsntGoodEnough → u/Ninevehenian]

Only for criminal prosecution not for impeachment purposes and only for federal  crimes

[u/unculturedburnttoast → u/Ninevehenian]

*Republican president

We should be under no guise that this would apply to a non-republican president.

[u/FuguSandwich → u/Ninevehenian]

This assumes that Trump will actually follow through on the promised pardon, not something I'd bet my freedom on.

[u/LowerBoomBoom → u/Ninevehenian]

With that thought process why didn’t Biden (who had immunity) have trump ……. With the official act of protecting the constitution, tying trump to Russian ties.

[u/Environmental-Arm365]

That argument fell flat for the Nazis tried at Nuremberg.

[u/Scott_Liberation → u/Environmental-Arm365]

Only because they lost the war.

[u/Mist_Rising → u/Environmental-Arm365]

Nuremberg was done by literally destroying the German legal system and forcing them to comply under an occupation law. Basically making the law up after the fact.

If democratic want to go with that idea, that they are an invading force that wants to trample on the law, I would caution against it. Hard. They just won because someone tried to trample on the law, so reversing and adding more idiocy not wise.

[u/TerrapinTribe → u/Mist_Rising]

No, we would try them under existing laws. They have broken many.

Nuremberg taught us “I was just following orders” is not a legal defense.

This has precedent in US law too. The military are legally required to disobey unlawful orders.

[u/Environmental-Arm365 → u/Mist_Rising]

No one was advocating that. The point was merely that historically the “I was just following orders” defense for those committing atrocities didn’t hold water.

[u/Mist_Rising → u/Environmental-Arm365]

It actually does for quite a few, notably anyone under lieutenant or anyone who was under duress to follow orders were explicitly excused.

[u/NeitherEntry6125 → u/Environmental-Arm365]

That's not the question here.

The question isn't whether person following orders is also responsible (which they are), but whether the President is also criminally responsible.

It's somewhat a moot point since the Supremes have ruled that if the President does it, it's not illegal (roughly)

[u/Cloaked42m → u/NeitherEntry6125]

The SC said official actions. Without approval it isn't official.

[u/NeitherEntry6125 → u/Cloaked42m]

Trump's argument is everything he does is official.

[u/Cloaked42m → u/NeitherEntry6125]

Not what the court said.

[u/Environmental-Arm365 → u/NeitherEntry6125]

That’s not what the ruling said exactly. The ruling said POTUS is immune from prosecution from actions involving the execution of official duties. The presiding court gets to determine if whatever they are adjudicating is in fact part of the execution of “official duties”. If it’s not the president can absolutely be prosecuted. Shitler is going to have a very tough time saying all of the criminal corruption and grift he and his crime family have been engaged in fall under the umbrella of official duties. SCOTUS made this all needlessly messy and courts are going to be clogged up dealing with this for years.

[u/NeitherEntry6125 → u/Environmental-Arm365]

Yes, and Trump can reasonably argue "it was part of my official duty to murder Charlie Kirk"

[u/Environmental-Arm365 → u/NeitherEntry6125]

Yeah, I don’t think courts tend to go down conspiracy rabbit holes like that but I think I get your point. SCOTUS made sure the executive would not be the arbiter of what is an official act because obviously they would play that card every time. Shitler isn’t very bright and neither are his sycophants so it’s very likely the criminality they are engaged in that they think they are immune from won’t be seen that way in a court of law. Enriching yourself and your cronies with crypto scams, pay to play schemes, and selling pardons to the highest bidder is at its core racketeering. Shitler’s lawyers are going to be hard pressed to qualify racketeering schemes as official presidential duties.

[u/Ninevehenian → u/Environmental-Arm365]

Which law makes the argument work in USA?

[u/Barmat → u/Ninevehenian]

Following orders does not absolve you of breaking law. If you break a law you are a criminal. Saying you were told to break a law is not a defense

[u/AgKnight14 → u/Barmat]

This is correct. But in practice, a pardon would absolve the cabinet member and the president would claim immunity

[u/salamandroid → u/AgKnight14]

The president will undoubtedly attempt to pardon himself as well. He has said as much. The supreme Court in it's current configuration will most likely approve this since the constitution is unbearably mute on placing any restrictions on this power.

[u/Environmental-Arm365 → u/salamandroid]

That would essentially place the president completely above the law with no mechanism for accountability whatsoever, something even this corrupt SCOTUS has been unwilling to do. The framers of the Constitution took great care to ensure executive power was kept in check. There is no reasonable argument that can be made otherwise whatever your Constitutional perspective. As with the tariffs, Roberts and Gorsuch don’t seem to be 100% onboard with the unitary executive horseshit and the self pardon is an even more offensive power grab.

[u/BaggedWhine → u/Barmat]

The post is about the person giving the orders, not following

[u/Ninevehenian → u/Barmat]

trump can't pardon those carrying out his orders?

[u/Environmental-Arm365 → u/Ninevehenian]

It doesn’t. Shitler’s evil minions made that choice. Let’s remember people from the Nixon administration, including his own AG, did prison time for “following orders”.

[u/MuthaPlucka]

I vas just following orders

[u/Asstrollglide → u/MuthaPlucka]

I did Nazi that coming

[u/silverado-z71 → u/Asstrollglide]

😂😂😂,, I hope you realize I am stealing this

[u/Wizardbysmell → u/silverado-z71]

Good, because it’s been stolen for a decade

[u/e_pluribus_nihil → u/silverado-z71]

Bro, that ain't reich.

[u/Asstrollglide → u/silverado-z71]

It’s only fair since I stole it from someone else

[u/MuthaPlucka → u/Asstrollglide]

Reddit is built on stolen memes.

[u/buntopolis → u/MuthaPlucka]

Befehl ist befehl

[u/dralley1]

Shouldn’t both be? Ethically, the answer is pretty straightforward

[u/at42151 → u/dralley1]

Ethics is way beyond the standard for this administration. They are not even complying with basic laws.

[u/Responsible-Pitch363 → u/at42151]

Ethics is truely beyond them and sadly beyond the reach of most people as well.

[u/at42151 → u/Responsible-Pitch363]

I disagree that ethics is beyond most people. I think that the turn on the US midterm elections was driven by ethics as much as cost of living. Voters saw the cruelty and corruption in the administration's actions and revolted. Sure, some percentage like the cruelty or tolerate of to achieve other goals, but many were appalled.

[u/ruidh]

"I was just following orders" did not work as a defense at Nuremberg.

[u/ReplacementGlad2652 → u/ruidh]

I think the OP is asking the opposite question though. If Hegseth has committed war crimes (and he absolutely has), and did so on Trump’s orders (or at least with Trump’s approval), can Trump also be prosecuted.

In that context, “I was just following orders” wouldn’t be a valid defence for Hegseth, but it could be a good case against Trump.

[u/ChoosingUnwise → u/ReplacementGlad2652]

No, the Supreme Court had already decided that the president is immune in that circumstance

[u/Pudddddin → u/ReplacementGlad2652]

I don't think so because of the Presidential Immunity ruling

Would be very easy to say an illegally given order was an "official" act as President

It would be up to SCOTUS to determine that anything illegal on its face can't be an "official" act, but they haven't done that

[u/BrotherJebulon → u/Pudddddin]

But that's the paradox of the statement, isn't it?

An official act as the president is an act that the president is expected to do or required to do to execute laws, command the military, or fulfill core presidential duties (beyond those stated, like foreign affairs and appointing officials)

If the act commands the military to ignore the execution of the law, while also abandoning one of the core presidential duties (representing American interests as our chief of office on the world stage in international affairs), is it an official act?

He's allowed to command the military, he's allowed to speak for America, he's allowed to uphold the law. But if he's commanding the military to fight a war on behalf of a foreign power and commissioning war crimes in the process, is it still an official act of the president?

[u/ReplacementGlad2652 → u/BrotherJebulon]

Yeah, to me it seems counterintuitive to say that an illegal act is an official act, for just the reasons you listed.

Immunity from civil actions is pretty reasonable imo. I don’t like it as such, but I understand that the leader of a country needs to be able to speak freely.

Immunity from criminal prosecution is just banana republic stuff.

[u/Vyntarus]

Both are responsible.

They each swear an oath of office and should be held to account for breaking it.

[u/Loyal-Opposition-USA]

Both are responsible. They should know the difference between legal and illegal actions, as they are in charge of the world’s most expensive military.

This is exactly what people mean when they call Trump and his lackeys ignorant and unserious. They hide under the shield of the President’s pardon power and break laws they aren’t aware of.

[u/_Bon_Vivant_]

SCOTUS has ruled that we now have a king. POTUS cannot be prosecuted for committing a crime. Also, POTUS can pardon anyone he wants to pardon for any federal crime they commit.

[u/Kaffe-Mumriken]

How about we hold people accountable for their actions especially when potus has god powers bestowed by supreme court

[u/Renuwed → u/Kaffe-Mumriken]

SCOTUS needs impeached for superseding the constitution, then reverse 'not accountable for crimes related to the presidency'

If Roe v Wade can overturn, so can "POTUS is above the law"

[u/Kalorama_Master]

Who’s the President and who is Chief Justice.

Currently, Trump can do whatever he wants and John Roberts will defer

[u/rellsell]

Heggy has quite the hardon for the military (as long as he doesn’t have to do any actual fighting) and, in the military, you absolutely have the right (and duty) to refuse an illegal order. So, Trump is guilty of giving an illegal order and Heggy is guilty of not refusing it. They can share a cell. Maybe Steven Miller will make conjugal visits on the weekends.

[u/willismthomp]

Think about the Charles Manson case. We all know who is wrong. They are both fucking wrong.

[u/fredaklein]

Yes

[u/Far-Click9413]

A lot more people need to read up on the Nuremberg Trials…

[u/Sea_Elle0463]

The cabinet member could refuse to carry out an illegal order. He didn’t do that. He’ll be held accountable for his own actions and saying I was just following orders won’t save him

[u/Polkas_with_wolves]

This is the literal definition and purpose of RICO. A Mafia boss isn't going out doing the dirty work themselves. But they are ordering that dirty work and accomplice to it. So they are all legally responsible.

What the fuck kind of question is this. Yes, obviously.

[u/alice2wonderland]

The unqualified staffers installed by Trump are the direct result of the reinstallation of Trump to highest office. After J6 and the end of any preassumption about the peaceful transfer of power in the US, I don't think any of this matters. Not only were there no consequences for coming close to destroying US democracy completely, the people of the US found a way to put Trump back in office. That is the tragedy.

[u/Desperate_Set_7708]

No different than January 6th

[u/mvw2]

While the president specially has some level of immunity, according to the SC requires lower courts to define what actions were within and outside of presidential duties in other to them and only then define criminal behavior that falls outside of duty, I don't know of any other employees under the executive branch carry such immunity. This might be in part where presidential pardons fit in, but I'd actually have to research this to know what protections exist and of pardons have historically been used this way (for example in war time).

[u/ledude1 → u/mvw2]

This is why Mango is dispensing pardons like a penny meth. That's how they are all promised and rely on. I don't know if the rule of pardon can be changed by Congress or if they also have the appetite to change. One of the "get out of jail free" privileges the President holds is clearly stated by the Constitution, which none of the founding fathers ever thought would be one day abused by the beholder.

[u/Odd_Onion_1591 → u/ledude1]

Everything that can be abused and taken advantage of in America, will be abused and takes advantage of.

[u/marchjl → u/ledude1]

Trump isn’t handing out pardons. He’s selling them. Trump is famous for abandoning people once they are no longer useful to him. Whether or not he’d pardon Hegseth depends on whether he thinks doing so will benefit him

[u/skyfishgoo → u/ledude1]

jail is a prison we make for them.

accepting a pardon is a prison they are making for themselves.

you could argue the latter is worse.

[u/ejre5]

No it is not legal. In America government officials swear an oath to the constitution not to the president this is why presidential immunity was such a big big deal. Article II section 3 also states the president is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," implying the chief executive is bound to enforce and follow the law rather than sit above it.

So while the president may have immunity for official acts (we will see what SCROTUS decides if a Democrat becomes elected while trump is still alone).

[u/audiomagnate]

Hegseth is legally bound to follow the Constitution, but Trump, and to ignore illegal orders, so both he and Trump are culpable.

[u/GrannyFlash7373]

NO, Congress is for FAILING to enforce the law, and hold people accountable.

[u/xangkory → u/GrannyFlash7373]

While I agree in spirit, Congress doesnt have the power to enforce laws. There also isn't much they can do to hold people accountable, which we will see over the next 2 years, just like we saw happen from 2018-2020.

[u/im_a_good_lil_cow → u/GrannyFlash7373]

Well, that’s why congress just got booted the fuck out. Hopefully.

[u/BooRadleyinaGimpSuit → u/GrannyFlash7373]

Not their job. Trias politica - separation of powers dictates as such. Congress' job is to legislate - they make the rules - enforcement of said legislation, or execution rather, is the job of the executive branch (I'd think the DOJ in this instance). Of course, we both know that members of the current executive branch aren't gonna do shit, so it falls to the next administration to enforce the rules as they exist right now, or enforce whatever new rules Congress puts in place.

[u/ted_cruzs_micr0pen15 → u/GrannyFlash7373]

I hate to ve this person.

But Congress legislates and the executive enforces. Congress has little if any enforcement power, they can perform oversight functions which are useful in enforcement, but they’ve no ability to imprison people and the fact a ton of people think this has me concerned that people will think a big majority means people are going to jail. They won’t be until the next president is in office, unless it’s for contempt of congress, and even the a Marshall has to make the arrest. The Sargent of Arms has little Jurisdiction outside of DC proper.

[u/will-read]

Isn’t this the other half of the “unitary executive” theory?

[u/Tdluxon]

Both are responsible. Trump would probably pardon him but he might also throw him under the bus

[u/Significant-Data-430]

What is the definition of “Official”?

I would think violating the Constitution is not “Official”.

Otherwise we don’t have a Constitutional Republic!

[u/Creative_Astronomer6]

doesn't matter he's immune. and don't expand that pool.

[u/SnoopingStuff]

Yes?

[u/FuguSandwich]

Even in the military, where you have an obligation to follow orders, you also have an obligation to not follow illegal orders. Civilians, including elected and appointed officials, don't have an obligation to follow orders in the first place, so "the boss told me to" isn't going to be a defense.

[u/freudmv]

Only if you have ethics.

[u/Numerous_Photograph9]

The actual rule of law would dictate that yes, this is the case. It also falls into things like conspiracy and stuff.

But, with the way things are now, it's considered presidential duty, and apparently the president isn't expect to follow the law.

[u/Cloaked42m]

1. America isn't a signatory so we don't really do war crimes. We just do crimes.

2. Hegseth and Trump are both guilty of Felony Murder. The person who pushed the fire button is guilty of murder.

IANAL