Trump attorney tells judges presidential immunity would even cover assassinating rivals, selling pardons
US presidents cannot be prosecuted for selling pardons or assassinating political rivals through SEAL Team Six, personal Trump lawyer John Sauer argued Tuesday
Advancing a sweeping interpretation of executive immunity, Donald Trump’s attorney told a federal appeals court on Tuesday that U.S. presidents could not be prosecuted for selling pardons or assassinating political rivals through SEAL Team Six.
Trump’s lead attorney D. John Sauer argued that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office in a Senate trial potentially would be subject to prosecution for those kinds of alleged crimes.
A three-judge panel appeared extremely skeptical of Trump’s vision of absolute immunity, sharply questioning and interrupting Sauer during the opening minutes of the oral arguments with the former president himself sitting nearby.
“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That’s an official act–an order to Seal Team Six,” U.S. Circuit Judge Florence Pan asked Sauer.
“He would have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer replied, setting a pre-condition for such prosecution in Pan’s hypothetical.
So this means its open Trump hunting season for Biden, right? It is totally legal and cool for him to assassinate Trump, right??
Of course we all know they intend for this argument to only apply to Trump.
Stuff like this is what I wish would happen.
Like the german nazi party desperately wants more people to be evicted from Germany, I say great, evict the AfD politicians and their voters! Wooot! Everyone happy!
Right, when the right wing fuckos trot out their obviously bad-faith arguments, we should be taking to them to their logical fucking conclusions right the fuck away.
It would be beautiful to see the entire Republican wing of the house pissing themselves and losing their shit knowing that an assassin from Biden could get them at any moment. Especially after the first few drop and Biden just says "it's me, it's totally legal and cool, right?" Also making sure to drop the first 20-or-so at the same time so right after it happens the Dems have a majority in both the House and Senate so no Republican can actually bring a vote for impeachment.
They'd be screaming bloody murder because the only thing they actually care about is their own skins.
Nah, let them keep a majority in the house. They vote to impeach, the Senate acquits, then he goes for round two...
Trump is not a very good walker. Very weak steps. Maybe it will be a sort of accident? Is that the ruzzian way or what?
Very weak steps by the very low window in the very tall building.
Trump has the tallesest buildings. Buildings with windows so tall, the likes of which nobody has ever seen before.
Nah, that's polonium tea
I know Elmer always lost, but I still want to see Trump being chased by Biden with a rifle like Elmer Fudd. Real life doesn't have to imitate the cartoon.
No. If you read the article, you’ll see that this isn’t Sauer’s argument. It’s another ragebait title, and based on the comments in this thread, it’s working.
EDIT: Okay, I see the flaw in my thinking. Carry on.
His argument is that there would be no possible legal recourse if a US president tried to seize absolute power the way Saddam Hussein did in Iraq, by having everyone in the legislature that might oppose him lined up and shot.
Okay, I was wrong. I see the problem. Thank you.
Yeah it is. Maybe you'd like to think there's some subtlety we're missing because Sauer stated the President would need to be impeached to lose immunity, but what happens if the President assassinates anyone who would impeach him?
Oh right on, hey call it off guys and gals. This dude read the article and says democracy is going to be just fine.Edit: much respect to anyone willing to update their conclusions based on new input.
Then they're saying it would be legal if Biden assassinated Trump right now.
Either his actions were treason and the sentence is death or his actions as president were untouchable in which case the president can shoot him without reprise. What a dangerous precedent to set!
Sounds like these legal arguments are a win-win for anyone who isn't Trump then
Only if the House didn't impeach him and the Senate didn't convict.
So Biden would also have to kill as many Congressional Republicans as possible to prevent any impeachment vote from succeeding. This "legal theory" is essentially saying "one murder might be criminally liable, but mass murder of political opponents is just fine!"
Here's a better question, Judge Pan.
Could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate unsympathetic judges, either of an appeals court or the Supreme Court itself, since that's an "official act?" Because that might be something worth considering.
This argument would, in fact, suggest that the president could order a judge assassinated. And I'm guessing the appeals court knows that.
Like every other grand ol' projection, I believe this should be interpreted as a threat of things to come, not academic speculation.
Unless it's a Republican, he means.
This is their plan for every election, administrative, and legal matter: let Congress decide.
A body they can buy bribe and beleaguer.
Or “legally” assassinate opposing members before the impeachment vote.
Then he could assassinate them all, continually, until Congress is packed with people so afraid they'll be killed if they step out of line and there's no legal recourse. Just like the Founding Fathers intended...
Obviously the intent of the founding fathers and the people is that insurrectionists cannot be permitted on a ballot, not by any officer of any court or state.
It's the same as the Fourth Amendment. If the prohibition on warrantless search and seizure has any meaning at all, it is a command to every law officer, attorney, and judge, as to how they must do their part of their job in the matter, and that rule is that: if the constable blunders, the criminal must go free. The remedy is implied by the text, because if it's not the text doesn't mean shit.
That's his dream scenario.
what the fuck
The fascists saying the fascist shit out loud
Yes, and also revealing how fascist the United States has been for centuries.
Man, why did Nixon even bother resigning? Why was Clinton or Trump even impeached? They were obviously immune from ever doing anything wrong, ever. The Presidency exists completely outside of the normal checks and balances in our government, the President can just do whatever they want.
Well being President is sort of like being a Star. And as well all know, if you're a Star they let you do it. Orange Julius was talking about underage pageant contestants at the time, but I think the same principle applies here.
The Dic...president I mean is a god. /s
he can go live in Russia if that's the kind of "President" he wants
What a fitting show for this timeline it would've been to see Putin and Trump competing for the president 🤔
The US really needs to sit down and decide what the president can and cannot do. It won't be the last time magats try this shit.
Boomers don't think it's important so it won't happen.
Whatever 33 senators will allow and not vote to convict on an impeachment vote. Under Biden, that is what Debbie Stabenow (33rd most liberal senator) and senators more liberal will allow. Under Trump, that would be what J.D. Vance (33rd most conservative) and more conservative senators would allow.
Completely fucking insane...
Pan reframed the question to include a hypothetical where a president ordered assassination and then was not impeached, and Sauer still hung on to "impeachment has to happen first."
So Biden hunting down the entire GOP House for sport is up for grabs, then. It's not a coup, it's part of his official duties!
This is exactly one of the scenarios that Jack Smith offered as an example of why this kind of immunity is ridiculous.
I'll just say that I have more hope and faith in Jack Smith than I was ever able to muster for fucking Robert Mueller, who had his own shady history with the railroading of Bruce Ivins over the Anthrax scare in the Bush era.
To my knowledge, despite the mountains of evidence to prove that Ivins was not "their man" the FBI continues to hold that they were correct.
Smith has proven himself to be a more serious contender than Mueller.
If we have to debate this much whether or not a President should stand trial for criminal charges, I think he did it.
At this point, we're way past that line of the narcissist's prayer
An individual allowed to do anything without consequence is a dictator, not a president.
And so after years upon years upon decades of rhetoric from Republicans warning about the growing power of the Executive and the abuses of the Executive by FDR...
... uh, nevermind all that apparently, if our guy is in charge he should be able to just unilaterally assasinate political rivals.
You know. Like anyone that would vote to impeach him. For assassinating political rivals.
This is literal baby brain logic that actual Elementary School Children could probably understand is stupid.
Hooray for living in Clown World, the dumbest possible timeline.
This is basically logic that can only possibly have come from serious QTard Syndrome, Terminal Stage. Its the only way possible for /the Storm/ to actually happen.
Can a lawyer be disbarred for advocating for the dissolution of the Rule of Law?
Can he be disbarred for never having seen Schoolhouse Rock ever as a child?
Seal team six perched in the rafters during the state of the union address.
Biden: And now I will receive a round of applause from my good Republican colleagues. Clap, motherfuckers!
@Tremble @MicroWave Saddam Hussein: how a deadly purge of opponents set up his ruthless dictatorship https://theconversation.com/saddam-hussein-how-a-deadly-purge-of-opponents-set-up-his-ruthless-dictatorship-120748
Biden: taps mic….. can I get a show of hands of everyone who supports my economic agenda
Which is why it's a batshit insane idea.
Remember, his base sees this as strength.
They don't care about the means, they want a "strongman" to kill the Americans they see as their enemies for them.
Modern Republicans don't give a two shilling shit about democracy, they'd rather have an authoritarian so long as it's an authoritarian they're deluded into believing represents their interests.
Just in case anyone thinks these remarks might make him lose a single vote.
I agree, and at the same time I wonder what the current president could fix the issue with the former? I mean, the current president has immunity right? /s
Trump is literally scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to attorneys
Ugh, Trump dug through (metiphorically, guy couldnt actually dig) the bottom of that barrel and is now into the earths mantle
Can you imagine the payoff though if the court agrees and he becomes president? Assassinate your enemies, straight out of Putin’s playbook. That’s a dictator’s favorite move! Democrats and liberals wouldn’t do it because they have fucking morals, but the GOP would be happy to.
Which law is that written in again?
Trump’s lead attorney D. John Sauer argued that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office in a Senate trial potentially would be subject to prosecution for those kinds of alleged crimesAnd it gets better. In the Georgia case, they are arguing that Trump can't be tried because he was impeached for that crime and a criminal trial would be double jeopardy.
Ignore for a second that his impeachment wasn't over the Georgia crimes. Trump's lawyers are arguing that you need to impeach/convict before you can criminally charge, but if you impeach then you can't criminally charge.
Their legal theories are the equivalent of "I object! It's devastating to my case!"
i.e. a preview of the next administration.
If you take that argument to the logical extreme, a President who has committed all those bad acts can:
Stop all investigations of said bad acts, therefore avoiding impeachment.
Threaten any member of the House that is thinking of voting to impeach him.
On the off-chance is impeached and is now waiting the verdict of the Senate, have every incentive to offer all kinds of corrupt deals (free pardons, private arms deals, etc) to Senators to buy their vote. This way, they won't be convicted in the Senate and they can keep enjoying their infinite immunity forever.
Neat-o.
Or just go one step further and have all Congressional members of the opposing party killed.
Biden would never do this and I don't want him to, but let's suppose that Trump's "legal theory" is correct and Biden wakes up tomorrow thinking that he's sick of dealing with the Republicans' malarkey. He orders some military groups known to be loyal to him to round up every Republican member of Congress along with certain Supreme Court justices. They are all executed. Then Trump is brought in and executed as well.
Now what would happen? Would Biden be charged with mass murder? No, he's immune to prosecution. You need to impeach and convict him first. But nobody remains who would impeach him. So he's totally immune as he appoints left leaning Supreme Court justices and expands his "early Republican retirement program" to right leaning Federal judges.
Again, I wouldn't want him doing this, but according to Trump this would be totally legal.
Look up the tape of sadaam Hussein rising to power, that's exactly what he did. Had all of his enemies carted out in front of everyone to be executed. That's the future trump wants for us.
I want to believe there would be a principled few who would. But someone who would murder their opponents would also murder their colleagues, and they’d all know this, so…yeah.
So if Trump gets immunity... Does that mean Biden is of the hook for whatever bs the repubs want him impeached for? What would stop the Dems from "stealing" the election back? (Besides them having actual morals..)
Nope, he'd only be off the hook if his wrongdoing was connected to his duties as President. Ordering the military to assassinate Republican congressmen would be totally legit though, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
No, they're saying that impeachment and removal has to happen first.
So this means that Biden can just assassinate all of the GOP.
I'm going to need a script for benzos
Epstein didn't you, know himself...but let's discuss that in greater details if Trump ordered it.
What the lawyer seems to have actually said is that to prosecute the president, you first have to impeach him and remove him from office. Maybe also crazy, but still not the same as saying prosecution is impossible.
OK so what happens when the president assassinates the entire Senate.
Yes the logical conclusion here is definitely a violent autocracy and to pretend otherwise is a lack of imagination.
Heh yeah, that does complicate impeachment. Nixon still famously said "if the president does it, it is not illegal". We didn't give out because he got pardoned.
I haven't read this yet but it looks interesting:
https://theconversation.com/trumps-arguments-for-immunity-not-as-hopeless-as-some-claim-220580
I know that's what he said, but is that actually written down anywhere that that's actually the case? Seems to me, if it was actually the case, there shouldn't be this much hand-wringing.
Is there a good legal basis for what he said (that prosecuting the president takes an extra step compared to prosecuting anyone else)? Maybe not. It's just different than saying the president can never be prosecuted. I posted a link nearby that goes into more detail.