Trump Lawyer: President Can Have Rival Assassinated If Congress Is OK With It
By: Sonam Sheth (Business Insider)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
- Trump's team has claimed he has immunity from criminal prosecution over his actions when he was in office.
- An appeals-court judge stress-tested that argument Tuesday by posing a series of wild hypotheticals.
- Trump's lawyer said a president couldn't be prosecuted over an assassination if Congress were OK with it.
Former President Donald Trump's attorney on Tuesday argued that a president could order the assassination of his political rival and couldn't be prosecuted for it — unless Congress impeached and convicted that commander in chief first.
Trump's lawyer made the argument in a contentious appeals-court hearing Tuesday in the special counsel Jack Smith's election-interference case against the former president.
Trump's legal team has repeatedly argued that the ex-president has "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution related to his acts while in office (a claim many legal experts reject).
But Judge Florence Pan, one of three judges on the Washington, DC, appeals-court panel, tested that argument at length when she posed a series of hypotheticals to Trump's lawyer D. John Sauer.
Pan wondered whether, according to the Trump team's argument, a president could be held criminally accountable for selling pardons or military secrets if he wasn't impeached and convicted by Congress for it.
"Your position is that he can't be prosecuted for that unless he's impeached?" Pan said.
"Yup, as long as it's an official act," Sauer said.
Then Pan took it a step further.
"Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?" she said. "That's an official act: an order to SEAL Team Six."
"He would have to be, and would, speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution — " Sauer began, but Pan cut him off.
"But if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?" she said.
Sauer reiterated that a president would first have to be impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate before he could be criminally charged for any acts related to his office. He started to discuss the position of the Founding Fathers before Pan cut him off again.
"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.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the terms "Brandon", "Traitor Joe" or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their comments deleted.
Tags
Who is online
242 visitors
Trump lowers the bar on sanity even further.
Sickening, but not unexpected.
I can see Sauer's point. But the sticky wicket is...would the Senate convict if he did order the assassination of a rival or sold military secrets to a foreign agent?
May I add...I don't trust the House or the Senate to do the right, moral, ethical, or legal thing
In my opinion, his point is not well-taken.
Some reporter should ask Trump: "If Biden orders your assassination tomorrow, and he is not impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, is he absolutely immune from prosecution?"
Perfect. Absolutely perfect.
I like the way you think.
Since you are an attorney, I don't think I will argue with you on this.
Aww, go ahead. Attorneys like a good argument.
I did get my juris doctorate from Law and Order (ha!)
Better than trumpU!
I order a 730 exam for the former 'president'
Kelly-Ann Conway summed it up when said "alternate facts" and the MAGA imps ran with it!
For the self-proclaimed "stable genius"?
Now I'm a judge
if we get all the republicans to sign off on that legal concept, their 2024 primaries would get real interesting fast...
I just saw on the "news" a station replaying Mitch McConnell's speech on the Senate floor that
"there are civil and criminal courts to deal with Trump after his term has expired".
The 1st Trump impeachment defense lawyer Bill Van Der Meer went on and on saying the same thing.
The second Trump impeachment defense attorney used the same defense.
The Senate refused to convict Trump.
Now here we are with the magical immunity defense.
In 2021 Trumps lawyers were saying he shouldnt be impeached because he could be prosecuted later. Now Trumps lawyers are saying he cant be prosecuted because he wasnt impeached. They think the American people are fools.
they've had their goal posts mounted on wheels for the last 50 years...
The American people who support Trump are either naive fools, mentally challenged and/or evil like him.
This is and has always been MAGA conservatives working deceit on liberals and independent voter. The thinking goes like this:
Liberals and independents have no rights that MAGAs need to respect.
At the same time, MAGA/right wing propaganda portrays them as victims.
Because good deceivers work deceit at all angles in a Machiavellian manner. They will even tell you and me the truth. . .as an "in" to telling all encompassing lies at some future day-after having gained a measure of trust!
And no, even now I am not vindictive or hateful of MAGAs, but I want them to know I see through their BS 99.98 percent of the time.
I favor option 1.
the video clips of trump cultists interviewed in iowa are jaw dropping with their displays of willful ignorance...
What is most sickening are the millions of dimwits who believe this kind of crap.
I've been upset for 8 years. where were all these gullible morons when I was in sales?
[✘]
do you state this from a catchers position …?
[✘]
It's really sadder than that. It is exhausting and disheartening to learn and understand that there are. . .citizens. . . people in this country who truly, truly, in their heart of hearts do not want other citizens. . . people to have the same measure of freedoms that they do! I see it plain. The instance these other citizens started coming out of the 'background' and into their right placement in society. . .the moment nearest to the full-pledging of rights and privileges for the "Other" in this country. . .MAGAs started shouting doom, gloom, and threatening death to anybody who "MESSES WITH THEIR FREEDOMS. . .as if there is not enough freedom to go around for all.
It is so sad and heartbreaking to see and hear people whom one has known and/or been surrounded by all one's life, whom you might can smile and keep company with, that will wish for another's oppression, surrender, or death just so you can't be equal with them.
In this one regard, MAGAs are not dimwits. . . not really, they are highly selfish and self-interested.
uh, no, they really are dimwits...
40 watt bulbs in 100 watt fixtures...
Well, eye 4 1, am willing to share, my selfish imagery width the heights of plunder, with lightening fast breakfasts prepaired and modified into fast brakes slowing down the spiral stares just in case they're's are knot looking to escalate the uberlicious lifts that descend up the elevated shafts that lower
'the escalator of life, all while 'shopping in the human mall' Borough'd their man infested. Manifesto volumed down on an upsided cap, sized up right behind where left, while left behind, was an A, but spelled different, while pronounced the same yet in a different letter opening a plethora of ether fueled lamps oiled up n down uptown, down the street going up towning houses housed in a parkway before you hit the drive way out in front of the garage door to door exits exits, entered via the screen in the open window into a soul sold as sole, but inn a liquid form that is a gas on the back end of a hiccup, that caused you to slip another acid ingested wet, and slippery is watt you get, so ewe wind down by pitching a tent down the back alley that winds you up like you are watch, watt eye due over hear that..... me neither too
spaghetti or knot, there he goes...
or knot...
meet sawz ..?
During Trump's second impeachment trial his attorney, Bruce Castor, stated that:
Nixon resigned before his impeachment vote. Could a future President crimes and then avoid prosecution by resigning when he got caught?
Under Trump's theory, it would seem so.
Under Trump's theory the House impeachment inquiries on Biden would then mean dick.
Under Trump's theory, not if he's impeached and convicted.
Aren't they investigating him for acts that allegedly occurred before he became President?
I would think if he resigned then it's open season on the former POTUS. He did commit murder in our hypothetical did he not?
Under the Trump theory, a president who resigned would be absolutely immune from prosecution for any criminal acts committed while in office. But in the real world, you are undoubtedly correct.
When he was VP. I'd argue if immunity applies to one it must apply to both. But under the twisted logic that Trump's lawyers are bringing up all sorts of dumb arguments come to mind.
Resignations for (lesser thought) crimes, misdemeanors, and the like are considered better than long, drawn out, and presidential embarrassment procedural trials. However, felonies are a whole other level and shall not/should not be so discharged.
This isn't a question of should or should not - nor even a question of is or is not. It's a question of Trump's legal argument stating it is.
I don't understand your response even enough to ask a question about it. Honestly. Can you elaborate?
Simply, my post has to do with the twisted logic of Trump's legal argument. Your post (at least the part I quoted) was sort of a judgment to the topic, not the topic itself.
But let me go back and address your comment directly.
Constitutional law makes no distinctions that I'm aware of on why a President resigns. As far as I know he can do it because it's Tuesday OR in Nixon's case because he was being charged with felonies.
Okay.
Glad I'm not the only one to take what happened to Nixon into consideration in such a case, but his resignation was not what let him get away.
The largest constitutional political mistake ever made IMHO, was when Ford gave Nixon the pardon, that is what let Nixon get away.
If Nixon had been made to face charges ,a trial , and possibly a conviction, that would have gone a very long way in answering what if any immunity a president has, it would have likely also changed the course of how some presidents that followed did things in their own subsiquint terms in office.
Nixon avoided impeachment by giving his resignation. According to Trump's lawyers only Congress can weigh in on Presidential misconducted via the impeachment process and not a criminal court. So, the twisted logic goes, committing crimes and avoiding an impeachment would give a future President free reign to do anything they wanted.
Not to forget Trump's impeachment lawyer said only a criminal court had the capacity to try him on his Jan 6th conduct.
Another argument still waiting on appeal is that Trump was acquitted by the Senate so re-trying the case in criminal court is should fall under double jeopardy.
That is what we have the courts for, especially SCOTUS, would not be the first time lawyers got corrected using that venue.
Did you mean could a future president commit crimes and then avoid prosecution by resigning when he got caught?
Probably the same way that Nixon got out of trouble. He was caught in the Watergate scandal and was set to be convicted by the Senate so he resigned AND Ford pardoned Nixon for his crimes. So yes, it could happen provided the upcoming president issues the pardon.
I fully agree with you, but we aren't talking about what is, or what should be. Nowhere in Trump's legal argument did the word pardon appear. The argument before the court was - Trump has immunity for any act committed while President. On questioning, his lawyer stated only Congress can determine a President's guilt or innocence via the impeachment process. By precedent, if not by law, impeachments are halted when the accused leaves office. Many Senate Republicans used this argument in Trump's Jan 6 impeachment case to not call witnesses and not review evidence.
So...if one were to buy in on this twisted logic - a President could order assassinations on his rivals and if caught could avoid impeachment by resignation or Congressional inaction. No pardon necessary. It's dumb and subverts the idea, if not the letter, of law.
Ok, I understand what you are saying. And I agree that Trump's immunity argument for anything he did while in office won't fly very far. But I think if he were to have an agreement with his vice-president so that Trump would resign and his VP would issue a pardon, I believe under those actions he could issue an assassination and his pardon would prevent any legal actions, provided of course he wasn't in a state court. I also think that such an action by his VP would be grounds for impeachment.
“I believe under those actions he could issue an assassination…”
And I can’t believe this is even a topic of discussion.
Agreed. Political assassination should never be undertaken by any elected official. My comment was more on a hypothetical situation.
The Court was also engaging with Trump's lawyers using hypotheticals and employing a method known as reductio ad absurdum, which is defined as proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory.
... if their legal concept is sound, how is their client still breathing?
That is what our current political situation has led to.
Yes, but also firmly shifts the burden of murder and criminal conspiracy to commit murder from the President to the Vice President.
trump attempted to shift the burden of insurrection to the VP on J6...
What Donald Trump is asking is galling and it should get the ire of any federal judge or court. As even judges and justices are not immune to felony conviction if they commit crimes. He, Trump, is literally 'promising' to wage 'unholy persecution' in his next presidency opportunity if given the chance. . .and this 'fool' is actually asking federal courts and the SCOTUS to grant him license to persecute any perceived "enemy" while president—even if the so-called enemy is a. . . JUDGE/JUSTICE! The idea/suggestion itself is insulting to the democratic process and rule of law.
Agreed 100%
[✘]
[✘]
His supporters seriously reek of desperation.
Along with meth flopsweat and bitterness...
[✘]
[✘]
Using your mind's eye. . .see the "devil" itself sitting in a court (shiny horns and all) asking the court to give it blanket immunity as president to do as it sees 'fit.' That is what this villainous man is asking for courts to grant to him!
so bazaaro, i can’t really offer a serious comment.
WTF happened to our collective common sense..?
If someone told you we would be discussing such absurdity before 2015, one would have been laughed of site.
Under Trump's insane absolute immunity theory, he could order SEAL team 6 to assassinate any Senators who might vote to impeach him, and he can't be prosecuted for his crimes if he eliminates enough Senators to prevent being convicted in his impeachment trial.
That's still murder, conspiracy to commit murder, murder for "hire"....SHIT!
And since he did it under federal employment, used federal money....this is a federal case where the death penalty is still in play.
Correct me on any of my assertions if need be
Under the legal argument it doesn't matter if he's not first convicted by the senate. It's an absurd argument and should be thoroughly killed by the court right now.
I've heard multiple legal pundits say they're expecting a quick decision because trump's legal argument was so flawed.
before the weekend...
I've been putting a list together for biden, should this ever get to the SCOTUS and they agree with trump...
... it's on my clip board.
...iggy tribute pun.
.
with the release of the roger stone audio talking about killing 2 democrat congressmen yesterday, political assassinations were already being considered by trump within his 4th reich.
That POS should be arrested and tried.
he needs his house painted.
... by professionals.