Trump attorney says presidents can’t be prosecuted for selling pardons or ordering murders

[Green Sun]

Trump attorney says presidents can’t be prosecuted for selling pardons or ordering murders

Former president Donald Trump’s lawyer told a three-judge panel of the US Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that a president would be immune from prosecution unless impeached and convicted, even if he was accused of having ordered a rival’s murder by the US military.

During arguments in a Washington DC courtroom on Tuesday, Trump attorney D John Sauer told Judges Michelle Childs, Florence Pan and Karen Henderson that Mr Trump is immune from prosecution under the impeachment and double jeopardy clauses of the US Constitution, citing the Senate’s 2021 acquittal of the ex-president on charges that he incited the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

Judge Florence Pan, a 2022 appointee to the circuit court by President Joe Biden, almost immediately began a rapid-fire questioning of Trump attorney D John Sauer over his contention.

She asked Mr Sauer if, hypothetically, a president could order the killing of a rival by the US military or sell pardons and be immune from any legal consequences.

“I understand your position to be that a president is immune from criminal prosecution for any official act that he takes as president even if that action is taken for an unlawful or unconstitutional purpose, is that correct?” she said.

He replied that prosecution would only be allowed following a conviction by the Senate.

She interjected to repeat the query after Mr Sauer’s filibustering answer: “I asked you a yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival ... would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

He replied: “Qualified yes – if he is impeached and convicted first.”

He later added that in his view, such a president would “have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution”.

James Pearce, the Assistant Special Counsel who argued the case for the US government, said Mr Sauer’s comments portended “an extraordinarily frightening future” because his view would place presidents largely outside and above the law.

For the "Party of Law and Order", their leader seems to want to be above it entirely. At the very least, we can dispel notion that he doesn't consider himself above everyone and everything - Him and his legal team are arguing for this complete immunity in court.

Horrific, despicable, and monstrous.

 

[Vambram]

That attorney fell into a trap by answering a 100,000% hypothetical question about something that no president would EVER do concerning ordering a political opponent to be murdered.
Although I understand the point about impeachment and Senate conviction he was trying to make, he gave a bad answer about a extremely hypothetical possibility.

I disagree with that attorney's answer and I disagree that Trump would do any of the hypotheticals posed by that judge.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That attorney fell into a trap by answering a 100,000% hypothetical question about something that no president would EVER do concerning ordering a political opponent to be murdered.

As an attorney appearing before a judge, he doesn't really have the option to not answer. (Though he did try a few times to not answer questions as asked.)

 

[Green Sun]

That attorney fell into a trap by answering a 100,000% hypothetical question about something that no president would EVER do concerning ordering a political opponent to be murdered.
Although I understand the point about impeachment and Senate conviction he was trying to make, he gave a bad answer about a extremely hypothetical possibility.

I disagree with that attorney's answer and I disagree that Trump would do any of the hypotheticals posed by that judge.

It's the logical conclusion to his legal team's argument that the President's immunity is absolute - Their argument is that, as president, one cannot be stopped from their "duties of the office", no matter what other actions they have taken. The judge here is taking their defense, that Presidential Immunity is completely absolute, and posing it to a logical extreme.

And the legal team does have to answer that sort of hypothetical. They have to because it's material to their argument. The questions the appeals court has been asking them relate to getting as much understanding of the position that his legal team claims, and on what evidence and merits they have to support those claims.

If they say "no, there is a limit to presidential immunity", then their claim that it is absolute isn't true, so Trump's team can't answer in the negative here.

If they refuse to answer, then they aren't being clear to the court (under oath) on what their position truly is. When you're in court for a non-criminal trial like this, you do have to answer truthfully. You can't just "plead the 5th" out of answering a question you don't like.

Trump's legal team here only had the position to say "Yes, he cannot be prosecuted unless he is impeached and removed first", because that is their legal opinion, and the entire linchpin of their case. If they want to answer no, or refuse to answer, they'd have to give up their entire argument of absolute immunity.

Absolute immunity would be absolute - And that's what Trump's team has been arguing for. It doesn't matter if the hypothetical is unlikely, because absolute immunity is absolute. It would apply to any and every situation - No matter how unlikely it would be.

 

[Vambram]

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/questions-immunity-trump/2024/01/09/

This is a long article on Newsmax that gives a well balanced perspective with facts and opinions.

 

[Bradskii]

That attorney fell into a trap by answering a 100,000% hypothetical question about something that no president would EVER do concerning ordering a political opponent to be murdered.

The judge is obviously giving the most extreme example she could think of to illustrate that if the answer was 'Yes, he would be immune from prosecution (unless impeached)' then the argument stands for any criminal act. You don't start with taking some government pens home with you and work your way up to see where the line is drawn. If he is immune from prosecution from murder then there is no line.

Reverse the line of reasoning here and they are arguing that if there is no impeachment then the president can literally do whatever he wants.

 

[stevil]

Former president Donald Trump’s lawyer told a three-judge panel of the US Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that a president would be immune from prosecution unless impeached and convicted, even if he was accused of having ordered a rival’s murder by the US military.

It's funny, trying to inject a political process into the Justice system.
It would mean any USA president could commit whatever crime they like as long as their own party is willing to not vote to impeach and remove them.
For example Biden could extort Israel and Ukraine to both declare D Trump an international criminal, to turn people off voting for D Trump and that would be totally fine as long as the Democrat Senators didn't vote to remove Biden.

Biden could pick up a gun and shoot D Trump during a presidential debate, and again it would be totally fine. He would be beyond reach of the law. He could even carry out some blatant voting fraud, Ohh, look Democrats win the election again, for the 10th time in a row, and it would be totally fine, as long as the Democrats enjoy being in power and never vote to impeach and remove Biden.

 

[Goonie]

Bidens got seal team 6 on speed dial if Trump's wins this argument.

 

[7thKeeper]

Bidens got seal team 6 on speed dial if Trump's wins this argument.

Best yet, the president will only have to have one third plus 1 of the Senate totally on his/her side and they can do whatever they want. I'd start off by shooting a few of the people not on my side, making impeachment even less likely. Because hey, why not? I'm immune as long as I'm not impeached.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Bidens got seal team 6 on speed dial if Trump's wins this argument.

That plan would depend on Democrat senators valuing partisanship over morality to at least the same degree as Republicans.

 

[Goonie]

That plan would depend on Democrat senators valuing partisanship over morality to at least the same degree as Republicans.

And for seal team six and those giving the orders to obey them.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/questions-immunity-trump/2024/01/09/

This is a long article on Newsmax that gives a well balanced perspective with facts and opinions.

Not there anymore:

 

[7thKeeper]

Not there anymore:

View attachment 341199

So, it is now the most balanced article with facts in it on Newsmax.

 

[Vambram]

Not there anymore:

View attachment 341199

I apologize. I don't know why that article was taken down.

 

[NxNW]

That attorney fell into a trap by answering a 100,000% hypothetical question about something that no president would EVER do concerning ordering a political opponent to be murdered.

Trump tried to have Pence and Pelosi murdered, is that close enough?

 

[Vambram]

Trump tried to have Pence and Pelosi murdered, is that close enough?

That is a ridiculous accusation.

 

[NxNW]

That is a ridiculous accusation.

I guess you missed the riot on January 6, 2021 in which Trump sent an angry mob to do just that. And then allowed and encouraged them to go after Pence and Pelosi.

 

[DaisyDay]

That is a ridiculous accusation.

Hasn't he also said that Gen. Milley should be executed? Mark Milley Takes Safety Precautions After Trump Suggests He Should Be Executed

 

[Vambram]

Hasn't he also said that Gen. Milley should be executed? Mark Milley Takes Safety Precautions After Trump Suggests He Should Be Executed

You are being inaccurate. According to the Vanity Fair article you posted, this is what they said Trump posted on Truth social. Trump made the threat while accusing Milley of partnering with China to conspire against his presidency. “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!” the former president wrote of Milley in a Truth Social post.

Now if you want to discuss the pros and cons of what Milley did when he was Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs during the last few weeks and months of Trump's presidency, then please start another thread. That would be an interesting discussion.

 

[Vambram]

I guess you missed the riot on January 6, 2021 in which Trump sent an angry mob to do just that. And then allowed and encouraged them to go after Pence and Pelosi.

I guessed you missed the part where Pence and Pelosi were never actually under a real threat of real violence at all. I guessed you missed the part in Trump's speech where he told them to peacefully and patriotically let their voices be heard.