John Sauer, the lead lawyer for former President Donald Trump, presented a bold claim regarding presidential immunity, arguing in federal court on Tuesday that a U.S. president could order the assassination of political rivals without facing criminal prosecution unless impeached and removed from office first.
This assertion came in response to a hypothetical question posed by one of the judges. The judge queried, “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?” Sauer’s response was clear: “If he were impeached and convicted first… there is a political process that would have to occur.”
The hearing was part of an appeal in Trump’s case related to allegations of election obstruction. The trial judge had previously dismissed arguments regarding the extent of presidential immunity, which are now being reconsidered at the appellate level.
Assistant Special Counsel James Pearce countered Trump’s legal team’s stance, emphasizing the unprecedented nature of their 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,” Pearce argued before the court.
Appeals court judges signaled that they will likely reject Donald Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution in his election interference case. The outcome seemed clear during arguments that touched on a range of political and legal considerations.
The Republican presidential primary front-runner made his first trip in months to Washington’s federal courthouse, where his lawyers sought to convince an appeals court to dismiss the case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The defense’s argument was met with outright skepticism by the three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The judges did not say when they might rule, but the timing of their decision is crucial with a March 4 trial date looming. Trump’s lawyers, who are hoping to delay the case beyond the November presidential election, are certain to go to the U.S. Supreme Court if the D.C. court sides with special counsel Jack Smith.
Part of Trump’s argument is that the Constitution prevents his prosecution because he was acquitted by the U.S Senate of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack in his historic impeachment trial. The defense argues that the Constitution’s impeachment judgment clause suggests that a president can be criminally charged only if he is impeached and convicted of similar conduct.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
13 Responses
Just to be safe, if he also neutralized 1/3 of the Senate (to preclude a conviction on an impeachment resolution), there would be NO circumstances under which he could face criminal prosecution
Oh my goodness what a disgustingly misleading and twisted headline!!!!!!!!!!!!
YWN you sound more leftist than the democrats
The clickbait headline is wrong. The actual claim was that a president who committed an ILLEGAL act would have to be found guilty via a senate trial before he could be tried in a court.
It is probably illegal al pi Torah to lie about this matter via a misleading headline.
@Ido: I mean, I wouldn’t call it misleading; it’s more of an actual, flat-out lie. According to the article on this page, the lawyer never argued that whatsoever, no matter how your wrist the words… because no matter what you twist his words to imply or mean, he certainly never uggested ilit would be LEGAL. Immune from prosecution and legal are two unconnected statuses…
Terrible headline. I’m glad to see others felt the same.
@yeshivaworldnews WHY!!
Just report the news.
Yes Yashar you are right
YWN who are you – reform liberals..?? Please drop the “Y” already and stop making a chilul H”!!
Trump was the most pro Israel president there ever was, let’s hope he comes back
Considering that the older a person is the less life in prison is a deterrence, and considering how old Joe Biden is, I would fear for my life after making this argument if I were him.
Ultimately, if Joe Biden were to go after in exactly the manner described in the courtroom, he would be impeached in the house but the senate would stall/acquit and under this legal theory he would be immune from prosecution.
Why hasn’t this kangaroo court case not already been suspended for at least a week, until after his mother-in-law’s לוויה and until after his wife gets up from שבעה
For the record, nearly all of the other governmental/sovereign immunities do continue even after you no longer have that position.
So a judge who has judicial immunity would still have their immunity after leaving the bench and so forth.
The difference here is that those (judicial, qualified, prosecutorial etc) immunities are civil immunities, while the topic of conversation here is a criminal immunity.
The argument for these civil immunities is that a civil servant would be unable to do their job if anyone could just tie them up with multiple lawsuits and financially ruin them. There would be a perverse incentive to not do what needs to be done because by for example arresting a mafia boss you would guarantee yourself financial ruin. This immunity would not be useful if it did not extend past the end of your civil service. There are exceptions to this immunity for the most egregious violations of rights.
The argument for presidential immunity to include immunity from criminal prosecution would be that since it is a highly political role, each president would be absolutely hamstrung by the threat of political DAs coming after them for minor/imagined infractions (I can indict a ham sandwich). This type of immunity as well, would lose much of its potency if it were to end upon leaving office. This immunity protects any president from any party and will almost certainly be used by another president in the future.
Wow !
Too much focus on the headline and the word legal.
The insane legal theory that Trump’s lawyer told to the Judge was that a president can go on crime sprees with impunity from any criminal proceedings as long as he is not first impeached.
Everyone in the United States who values democracy realizes that is extremely dangerous and as Michelle Obama would say “Terrifying !”.
This headline is sensationalism at it’s worst, if not complete slander on Trump’s attorneys. It’s completely false and misleading and YWN should be embarrassed for acting like a tabloid magazine.
His attorney was answering the leftist judge who posed this question, and Trump’s attorney DID NOT say that Trump can LEGALLY assassinate anyone. He answered the ridiculous question and said first Trump would need to be impeached and removed from office. That’s not called making something LEGAL.
YWN, start acting like a real news site and stop with this nonsense already or I and many others will just stick with VIN news.
The question posed to Trump’s counsel was deliberately worded to highlight the absurdity of his absolute immunity argument. In essence, they are claiming that the President is the sole arbiter of what constitutes an action taken within the scope of his official duties as POTUS and therefore only after a political impeachment could the criminal courts consider an indictment and trial. They likewise walked away from his impeachment trial argument that the Senate should defer to the criminal courts as to whether his actions leading up to January 6th and thereafter violated the law
YWN you are really making a laughing stock out of yourselves, just take a look at the comments your readers write here, it would make sense to change the headline asap..