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.
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.
It’s so hilarious that this is the response. Just like Republicans “speedily” impeached Trump after he mounted an insurrection?
It’s even worse as the President could dial up air strikes on the Capitol to kill them all and it’s all very legal and very cool.
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.