Former President Donald Trump’s lawyer argued that presidential immunity would cover the U.S. president ordering political rivals to be assassinated by SEAL Team Six.
During a hearing at a federal appeals court on Tuesday, Trump’s lead lawyer John Sauer made a sweeping argument for executive immunity, essentially saying that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office by Congress could be criminally prosecuted. Therefore, Sauer argued, the former president should be shielded from criminal prosecution.
One of the judges asked Sauer: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
Sauer responded: “If he were impeached and convicted first… there is a political process that would have to occur.”
The court is considering an appeal in Trump’s election obstruction case after the trial judge already rejected these same arguments about the scope of presidential immunity.
Except how can you claim to uphold the constitution while violating the constitutional rights of others?
So is Trump freaking outwardly about being assassinated? We know how he can’t help but project. Just say’in.
I anticipate that the appeals court will reject this argument very quickly and then Chutkan can resume the trial proceedings again.
She’ll probably not be willing to pause again for a SCOTUS appeal given that there is little if any likelihood for Trump’s team to succeed on merit.
Not only that, but SEAL team 6 could get rid of the other branches or anyone who would impeach the dictator. All under the guise of official acts mind you. This argument makes no sense and then Sauer goes into a word salad to basically say yes?
How can this possibly be allowed? May as well throw all ‘laws’ out the window then…
Ah, the quiet part out loud again
Yeah I think we are about done with this insane line of defense.
This is especially insane as McConnell argued you can’t impeach a president once they are out of office because impeachment’s only purpose is to remove the president from office. So Trump lawyers argue he would immediately be impeached, but it means that a president could do anything they wanted until congress finally decided to impeach, then the president could resign, and would be unable to be prosecuted. It’s all circular and ridiculous, and the fact that Trump’s lawyer is able to make this argument without shame is just beyond me. What an embarrassment. A danger embarrassment.
Terrible performance that has opened the door for really differentiating what is an “official act” or not in these kinds of hypotheticals.
You can’t argue that murdering political opponents is an official presidential act – by allowing for that hypothetical, Trump’s lawyers have undercut the (weak) argument they were trying to make.
If the lawyer had drawn the line and said “no, because there’s no way to interpret that as an official act, but speaking to a crowd of supporters about your interpretation of the state of American democracy can be considered an official act”, he might have made a point that at least begged questions about what is or isn’t an official act.
However, it still should be abundantly clear that Trump was not acting in his official capacity on J6 – for a start, he didn’t exercise his authority even when begged to by his cabinet officials, generals, and the Capitol Police. His Presidential switch was firmly in the “off” position that day and that should work against him.
So, if Biden nukes Indiana on his last day as president, since they didn’t impeach him, he’s clear to go?
Early on Judge Pan asked Sauer if a president could be criminally tried, and he **finally,** after his rambling word salad admitted a president **could** be prosecuted ONLY if he’s been impeached and convicted by congress first.
Then, towards the end of Oral arguments when Judge Pan reiterated his earlier words , his earlier acknowledgement that a president CAN be prosecuted he flipped, he kept trying to argue that **THIS** prosecution wouldn’t apply even if Trump *had been* impeached and convicted–directly contradicting himself.
Further, Judge Pan also pointed out that Trumps counsel in the Impeachment hearing’s entire arguments was that there was, to paraphrase, “No need to Impeach now, since we have criminal prosecution later…” and that Congresspersons based their vote on that argument, to which Sauer tries to weasel out by saying “that was speculation” and one can’t intuit the future,” there’s a difference between “the investigative and judicial process” and all other kinds of BS to now contradict earlier counsels arguments.
What an effin joke.
Also, this guy talks waaay too fast…he sounds like a used car salesman.
So I’m guessing he’s cool if Biden wanted to assassinate him, by that logic?
They’re really putting that argument forward while Trump is the political rival of the sitting president?
What if the crime is found out after he’s president?Say he had someone murdered, but no one found out till 4 years later. If he could only be tried for it by being impeached first, how could he be impeached for it if he’s not currently president?
Well, if they really believe this to be true, Dark Brandon needs to get to work…
Trump better watch his back with Biden in that case. I mean he’s literally making the argument that the sitting president can kill his rivals. If he is successful in this line of argument, and he’s not the sitting president at the moment, he should probably be careful.
Aww who am I kidding? The current SCOTUS, will find that no president is all powerful only until Trump is the president. Then they’ll find the opposite. Just because they’re corrupt as fuck. We can call that “pulling a Clarence Thomas.”
This seems like a really good argument NOT to give presidents immunity.
Why are the talking about hypotheticals? The twice impeached former president had, in reality, sent a mob into the Capitol building to assassinate his political rivals. We’re talking about an actual attempted political assassination and attempted insurrection.
The fundamental flaw this logic in the current example Trump is not being charged with the same crime he was acquitted for during the impeachment.
Likewise there are circumstances where the presidents actions might not be known until after he has left office.
Where do these people come from??
Alright under this logic, Any sitting president then can control the following election after their second term, so long as they assassinate all opposition in that election within their final hours. Can impeach someone from the presidency if they’re no longer president.
It’s some baffleing bullshit.
>“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” said Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee.
This has to be one of the most absurd legal arguments ever put forward before this circuit. Not to mention they are arguing these frivolous immunity claims while Trump publicly states he will prosecute Biden if he wins the Presidency.
If for nothing else, Trump and his lawyers are setting a golden, embarrassing standard as to why Presidents are not above the law with this case.
Dark Brandon… “What?”
Then Biden should send Trump to Guantanamo immediately due to his insurrection activities making him an official “enemy of the state”.
No due process needed.
Secret Service should be protecting the constitution, not the asshole wearing the MAGA hat.
Yeah, that’s a great legal precedent to set… hopefully Trump’s story ends not only with him in prison but also with his lawyers disbarred. Technicalities only go so far and we have a society and a legal system for a reason.😒
It’s a ridiculous question. The POTUS can’t do ANYTHING he wants! He is NOT a king! The Founding Fathers put their LIVES on the line to get out from under a king! It’s beyond ludicrous to even present this question! We are a country of laws not men! A citizen of The United States of America has legal rights no matter if the POTUS “likes” them or not! He is NOT the king of the United States he’s an elected CIVILIAN holding a public office!!!
What I find interesting is that none of Trump’s attorneys are arguing that Trump did not do anything criminal. They’re all trying to come up with some asinine explanation as to why he shouldn’t be prosecuted at all for anything he did while in office. They already know he’s guilty, they just want the courts to say lol thats ok that you committed crimes.
I just became certain that Trump tried to order the assassination of a political rival and he knows it’s going to come out soon.
>Former president Donald Trump’s lawyer argued that presidential immunity would cover the U.S. president ordering political rivals to be assassinated by SEAL Team Six.
During a hearing at a federal appeals court on Tuesday, Trump’s lead lawyer John Sauer made a sweeping argument for executive immunity, essentially saying that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office by Congress could be criminally prosecuted. Therefore, Sauer argued, the former president should be shielded from criminal prosecution.
One of the judges asked Sauer: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
>
>Sauer responded: “If he were impeached and convicted first… there is a political process that would have to occur.”
The court is considering an appeal in Trump’s election obstruction case after the trial judge already rejected these same arguments about the scope of presidential immunity.
Well between that and the Roger Stone audio reporting, I have t wonder just how many people Trump really wanted to have assassinated during and since his time in office (quantified aside from “probably a lot’).
Things that happen in healthy, functioning countries
So Biden could have 6 SCOTUS justices assassinated, and there’s nothing anyone could do about it. Interesting.
That’s a bold argument from a current rival of the US president
That sounds like a crime. I can’t be too sure but assassinating someone sounds like it is illegal.
The only people dumber than the bigly orange loser are the lawyers he is dredging up.
It’s embarrassing that our Country is even having this conversation.
Meanwhile I routinely see right wingers saying that democrats are the “true fascists” because they’re “not enforcing the border” and they are holding actual criminals accountable to some degree.
That’s how you know this is complete bullshit, and this lawyer should be embarrassed and scorned for such a blatantly specious argument.
It’s NOT against the law simply because the President does it? Even Nixon would be appalled.
If this is true, Trump better sleep with both eyes open /s
I’m starting to think that Trump’s lawyers are subversively on our side, Trump’s just too dumb to see it.
40 comments
From Semafor’s Mathias Hammer:
Former President Donald Trump’s lawyer argued that presidential immunity would cover the U.S. president ordering political rivals to be assassinated by SEAL Team Six.
During a hearing at a federal appeals court on Tuesday, Trump’s lead lawyer John Sauer made a sweeping argument for executive immunity, essentially saying that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office by Congress could be criminally prosecuted. Therefore, Sauer argued, the former president should be shielded from criminal prosecution.
One of the judges asked Sauer: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
Sauer responded: “If he were impeached and convicted first… there is a political process that would have to occur.”
The court is considering an appeal in Trump’s election obstruction case after the trial judge already rejected these same arguments about the scope of presidential immunity.
Read the full story [here](https://www.semafor.com/article/01/09/2024/trump-immunity-hearing-president-assassinate-rival-not-prosecuted?utm_campaign=semaforreddit).
Thats the way Putin described it to him.
Except how can you claim to uphold the constitution while violating the constitutional rights of others?
So is Trump freaking outwardly about being assassinated? We know how he can’t help but project. Just say’in.
I anticipate that the appeals court will reject this argument very quickly and then Chutkan can resume the trial proceedings again.
She’ll probably not be willing to pause again for a SCOTUS appeal given that there is little if any likelihood for Trump’s team to succeed on merit.
Not only that, but SEAL team 6 could get rid of the other branches or anyone who would impeach the dictator. All under the guise of official acts mind you. This argument makes no sense and then Sauer goes into a word salad to basically say yes?
How can this possibly be allowed? May as well throw all ‘laws’ out the window then…
Ah, the quiet part out loud again
Yeah I think we are about done with this insane line of defense.
This is especially insane as McConnell argued you can’t impeach a president once they are out of office because impeachment’s only purpose is to remove the president from office. So Trump lawyers argue he would immediately be impeached, but it means that a president could do anything they wanted until congress finally decided to impeach, then the president could resign, and would be unable to be prosecuted. It’s all circular and ridiculous, and the fact that Trump’s lawyer is able to make this argument without shame is just beyond me. What an embarrassment. A danger embarrassment.
Terrible performance that has opened the door for really differentiating what is an “official act” or not in these kinds of hypotheticals.
You can’t argue that murdering political opponents is an official presidential act – by allowing for that hypothetical, Trump’s lawyers have undercut the (weak) argument they were trying to make.
If the lawyer had drawn the line and said “no, because there’s no way to interpret that as an official act, but speaking to a crowd of supporters about your interpretation of the state of American democracy can be considered an official act”, he might have made a point that at least begged questions about what is or isn’t an official act.
However, it still should be abundantly clear that Trump was not acting in his official capacity on J6 – for a start, he didn’t exercise his authority even when begged to by his cabinet officials, generals, and the Capitol Police. His Presidential switch was firmly in the “off” position that day and that should work against him.
So, if Biden nukes Indiana on his last day as president, since they didn’t impeach him, he’s clear to go?
Early on Judge Pan asked Sauer if a president could be criminally tried, and he **finally,** after his rambling word salad admitted a president **could** be prosecuted ONLY if he’s been impeached and convicted by congress first.
Then, towards the end of Oral arguments when Judge Pan reiterated his earlier words , his earlier acknowledgement that a president CAN be prosecuted he flipped, he kept trying to argue that **THIS** prosecution wouldn’t apply even if Trump *had been* impeached and convicted–directly contradicting himself.
Further, Judge Pan also pointed out that Trumps counsel in the Impeachment hearing’s entire arguments was that there was, to paraphrase, “No need to Impeach now, since we have criminal prosecution later…” and that Congresspersons based their vote on that argument, to which Sauer tries to weasel out by saying “that was speculation” and one can’t intuit the future,” there’s a difference between “the investigative and judicial process” and all other kinds of BS to now contradict earlier counsels arguments.
What an effin joke.
Also, this guy talks waaay too fast…he sounds like a used car salesman.
EDIT: [This blogger](https://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote/2aj1d2bGqyhduSmYaLIxE02f9CM) articulated it a bit better than I did. Brief, but worth the read.
So I’m guessing he’s cool if Biden wanted to assassinate him, by that logic?
They’re really putting that argument forward while Trump is the political rival of the sitting president?
What if the crime is found out after he’s president?Say he had someone murdered, but no one found out till 4 years later. If he could only be tried for it by being impeached first, how could he be impeached for it if he’s not currently president?
Well, if they really believe this to be true, Dark Brandon needs to get to work…
Trump better watch his back with Biden in that case. I mean he’s literally making the argument that the sitting president can kill his rivals. If he is successful in this line of argument, and he’s not the sitting president at the moment, he should probably be careful.
Aww who am I kidding? The current SCOTUS, will find that no president is all powerful only until Trump is the president. Then they’ll find the opposite. Just because they’re corrupt as fuck. We can call that “pulling a Clarence Thomas.”
This seems like a really good argument NOT to give presidents immunity.
Why are the talking about hypotheticals? The twice impeached former president had, in reality, sent a mob into the Capitol building to assassinate his political rivals. We’re talking about an actual attempted political assassination and attempted insurrection.
The fundamental flaw this logic in the current example Trump is not being charged with the same crime he was acquitted for during the impeachment.
Likewise there are circumstances where the presidents actions might not be known until after he has left office.
Where do these people come from??
Alright under this logic, Any sitting president then can control the following election after their second term, so long as they assassinate all opposition in that election within their final hours. Can impeach someone from the presidency if they’re no longer president.
It’s some baffleing bullshit.
>“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” said Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee.
This has to be one of the most absurd legal arguments ever put forward before this circuit. Not to mention they are arguing these frivolous immunity claims while Trump publicly states he will prosecute Biden if he wins the Presidency.
If for nothing else, Trump and his lawyers are setting a golden, embarrassing standard as to why Presidents are not above the law with this case.
Dark Brandon… “What?”
Then Biden should send Trump to Guantanamo immediately due to his insurrection activities making him an official “enemy of the state”.
No due process needed.
Secret Service should be protecting the constitution, not the asshole wearing the MAGA hat.
Yeah, that’s a great legal precedent to set… hopefully Trump’s story ends not only with him in prison but also with his lawyers disbarred. Technicalities only go so far and we have a society and a legal system for a reason.😒
It’s a ridiculous question. The POTUS can’t do ANYTHING he wants! He is NOT a king! The Founding Fathers put their LIVES on the line to get out from under a king! It’s beyond ludicrous to even present this question! We are a country of laws not men! A citizen of The United States of America has legal rights no matter if the POTUS “likes” them or not! He is NOT the king of the United States he’s an elected CIVILIAN holding a public office!!!
What I find interesting is that none of Trump’s attorneys are arguing that Trump did not do anything criminal. They’re all trying to come up with some asinine explanation as to why he shouldn’t be prosecuted at all for anything he did while in office. They already know he’s guilty, they just want the courts to say lol thats ok that you committed crimes.
I just became certain that Trump tried to order the assassination of a political rival and he knows it’s going to come out soon.
>Former president Donald Trump’s lawyer argued that presidential immunity would cover the U.S. president ordering political rivals to be assassinated by SEAL Team Six.
During a hearing at a federal appeals court on Tuesday, Trump’s lead lawyer John Sauer made a sweeping argument for executive immunity, essentially saying that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office by Congress could be criminally prosecuted. Therefore, Sauer argued, the former president should be shielded from criminal prosecution.
One of the judges asked Sauer: “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
>
>Sauer responded: “If he were impeached and convicted first… there is a political process that would have to occur.”
The court is considering an appeal in Trump’s election obstruction case after the trial judge already rejected these same arguments about the scope of presidential immunity.
Well between that and the Roger Stone audio reporting, I have t wonder just how many people Trump really wanted to have assassinated during and since his time in office (quantified aside from “probably a lot’).
Things that happen in healthy, functioning countries
So Biden could have 6 SCOTUS justices assassinated, and there’s nothing anyone could do about it. Interesting.
That’s a bold argument from a current rival of the US president
That sounds like a crime. I can’t be too sure but assassinating someone sounds like it is illegal.
The only people dumber than the bigly orange loser are the lawyers he is dredging up.
It’s embarrassing that our Country is even having this conversation.
Meanwhile I routinely see right wingers saying that democrats are the “true fascists” because they’re “not enforcing the border” and they are holding actual criminals accountable to some degree.
That’s how you know this is complete bullshit, and this lawyer should be embarrassed and scorned for such a blatantly specious argument.
It’s NOT against the law simply because the President does it? Even Nixon would be appalled.
If this is true, Trump better sleep with both eyes open /s
I’m starting to think that Trump’s lawyers are subversively on our side, Trump’s just too dumb to see it.