Trump’s Idiot Lawyer Just Blew Up His Own Absolute Immunity Argument
One of Donald Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday made a shocking new defense of “presidential immunity”—and in the process accidentally destroyed one of the former president’s arguments for why he shouldn’t be charged for his role in the January 6 insurrection.Trump has repeatedly insisted that he cannot be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 election, because he has presidential immunity from criminal proceedings. His lawyers presented his case to a panel of three appellate judges in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.At one point, Judge Florence Pan asked if a president would be immune from criminal prosecution if he had ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. She noted that an order to Seal Team 6 would be an official act.Trump’s lawyer John Sauer said the president could be prosecuted, but only if he had been impeached and convicted first.That’s a terrifying interpretation on its own, but Pan took it one step further. She pointed out that this would mean presidents can be criminally prosecuted under certain circumstances. In other words, Trump does not have absolute immunity.“Doesn’t that narrow the issues before us to…‘can a president be prosecuted without first being impeached and convicted?’” Pan said. “All of your other arguments seem to fall away.”“Once you concede that there’s not this absolute immunity, that the judiciary can hear criminal prosecutions under any circumstances—you’re saying there’s one specific circumstance—then that means that there isn’t this absolute immunity that you claim.”CLIP: Exchange on immunity between DC Circuit Court Judge Florence Pan and D. John Sauer, attorney for former President Donald Trump.Judge Pan: "Once you concede that presidents can be prosecuted under some circumstances your separation of powers argument falls away..." pic.twitter.com/QYT8KoILkh— CSPAN (@cspan) January 9, 2024Pan also noted that Trump appeared to be trying to have it both ways. During his second impeachment trial, Trump and some of his Republican allies argued that the Senate shouldn’t convict him because he would face criminal prosecution later. But now, he claims he shouldn’t have to face prosecution, either.If the appellate judges rule against Trump, then the case will likely head to the Supreme Court. This could delay Trump’s trial, which is currently set to begin on March 4, the day before Super Tuesday.Trump was indicted in August for his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection and other attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He faces one count each of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against the right to vote.Trump has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and has insisted the case should be dismissed altogether. He argues that former presidents can’t be criminally charged for actions related to their official responsibilities. He did not explain how overturning an election was related to official presidential duties.While many critics say Trump’s immunity claim is a desperate attempt to avoid accountability, it could also be an attempt to ease his path towards increased power. As Greg Sargent writes for The New Republic, “If he wins on this front, he’d be largely unshackled in a second presidential term, free to pursue all manner of corrupt designs with little fear of legal consequences after leaving office again.”
One of Donald Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday made a shocking new defense of “presidential immunity”—and in the process accidentally destroyed one of the former president’s arguments for why he shouldn’t be charged for his role in the January 6 insurrection.
Trump has repeatedly insisted that he cannot be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 election, because he has presidential immunity from criminal proceedings. His lawyers presented his case to a panel of three appellate judges in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.
At one point, Judge Florence Pan asked if a president would be immune from criminal prosecution if he had ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. She noted that an order to Seal Team 6 would be an official act.
Trump’s lawyer John Sauer said the president could be prosecuted, but only if he had been impeached and convicted first.
That’s a terrifying interpretation on its own, but Pan took it one step further. She pointed out that this would mean presidents can be criminally prosecuted under certain circumstances. In other words, Trump does not have absolute immunity.
“Doesn’t that narrow the issues before us to…‘can a president be prosecuted without first being impeached and convicted?’” Pan said. “All of your other arguments seem to fall away.”
“Once you concede that there’s not this absolute immunity, that the judiciary can hear criminal prosecutions under any circumstances—you’re saying there’s one specific circumstance—then that means that there isn’t this absolute immunity that you claim.”
CLIP: Exchange on immunity between DC Circuit Court Judge Florence Pan and D. John Sauer, attorney for former President Donald Trump.
Judge Pan: "Once you concede that presidents can be prosecuted under some circumstances your separation of powers argument falls away..." pic.twitter.com/QYT8KoILkh— CSPAN (@cspan) January 9, 2024
Pan also noted that Trump appeared to be trying to have it both ways. During his second impeachment trial, Trump and some of his Republican allies argued that the Senate shouldn’t convict him because he would face criminal prosecution later. But now, he claims he shouldn’t have to face prosecution, either.
If the appellate judges rule against Trump, then the case will likely head to the Supreme Court. This could delay Trump’s trial, which is currently set to begin on March 4, the day before Super Tuesday.
Trump was indicted in August for his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection and other attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He faces one count each of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against the right to vote.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and has insisted the case should be dismissed altogether. He argues that former presidents can’t be criminally charged for actions related to their official responsibilities. He did not explain how overturning an election was related to official presidential duties.
While many critics say Trump’s immunity claim is a desperate attempt to avoid accountability, it could also be an attempt to ease his path towards increased power. As Greg Sargent writes for The New Republic, “If he wins on this front, he’d be largely unshackled in a second presidential term, free to pursue all manner of corrupt designs with little fear of legal consequences after leaving office again.”
