Former President Donald Trump's lawyer contended that presidential immunity would apply if the US president directed SEAL Team Six to execute political opponents.
During a hearing in a federal appeals court on Tuesday, Trump's senior lawyer, John Sauer, made a broad case for executive immunity, arguing that only a president who has been impeached and removed from office by Congress can be charged criminally. As a result, Sauer contended, the former president should be protected from criminal prosecution.
One of the justices posed the following question: "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?"
According to Sauer, "If he were impeached and convicted first... there is a political process that would have to occur."
After the trial judge rejected these similar arguments regarding the breadth of presidential immunity, the court is considering an appeal in Trump's election obstruction case.
James Pearce, an assistant special counsel, encouraged the judge panels to reject Trump's claim. "Never in our nation's history until this case has a president claimed that immunity from criminal prosecution extends beyond his time in office," the commander-in-chief told the judge. All three justices questioned Trump's legal position, aggressively probing his counsel on the immunity claims.
The conclusion of the arguments is expected to have significant repercussions for Trump's bid in 2024.
Trump seeks to postpone the election meddling trial by using the immunity appeals procedure.
According to The New York Times, Trump's legal team is attempting to postpone the trial until after the 2024 election through a lengthy appeals process on the immunity issue. In December, the Justice Department's Jack Smith unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene in the appeals process, arguing that the former
president should not be permitted to hinder a swift trial by legal means. Trump's criminal trial is now planned for March 4, but it might be delayed if there is a rehearing or if the matter is heard by the Supreme Court, which most legal experts anticipate
it will be. According to the legal blog Just Security, while Trump is likely to lose the appeal due to "the weakness" of his immunity argument, the courts could rule as late as mid-May.
Trump's immunity motion is expected to set a significant legal precedent regarding presidential power.
Whatever the outcome of Trump's appeal is, it will set a legal precedent with far-reaching implications for presidential power. Because "few presidents are known to have committed indictable crimes while in office," and none have ever been charged
for one, courts will have to address the question of whether a former president can be criminally prosecuted for crimes committed while in office for the first time, legal analysts wrote for Lawfare. While most analysts think that a president can face criminal prosecution, there is "no clear law on the point one way or another."
Nonetheless, Trump's legal arguments regarding the unique nature of presidential immunity "challenge a 250-year understanding of the scope of the presidency," according to CNN's Stephen Collinson. If the issue reaches the Supreme Court and the Court grants Trump's appeal, the expert says, "him and anyone else elected president will be above the law."
The focus on 'official acts' would be Trump's best defense for immunity.
While some crimes are blatant, it is less clear whether a president may be prosecuted for "ordering the assassination of a terrorist or refusing to prevent illegal border crossings," according to two legal reporters for the Los Angeles Times.
According to this line of reasoning, Trump's strongest legal defense is to underline that he is being charged for "official acts," they said. Indeed, Trump's lawyers contended that the indictment outlines "official conduct"
such as Trump's attempt to install a political loyalist as attorney general and conversations with members of Congress. Allowing presidents to be tried for "official acts" would open up "a Pandora's Box" of pursuing political adversaries, the lawyer warned.
0 Comments