Trump team argues assassination of rivals is covered by presidential immunity
Former President Trump’s legal team suggested Tuesday that even a president directing SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent would be an action barred from prosecution given a former executive's broad immunity to criminal prosecution.
The hypothetical was presented to Trump attorney John Sauer who answered with a “qualified yes” that a former president would be immune from prosecution on that matter or even on selling pardons.
In the hearing that reviewed a motion from Trump’s team to toss his election interference charges, Sauer argued that presidents can only be criminally prosecuted if they have already been tried and convicted by the Senate.
“He would have to be impeached and convicted,” Sauer replied.
That argument received heavy pushback from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the team of special counsel Jack Smith.
Judge Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, noted that a president could resign rather than face impeachment, something that under the framework of Trump’s attorneys would allow them to dodge future prosecution.
James Pearce, a lawyer with Smith’s office, forcefully pushed back against the notion that mechanisms to hold presidents accountable for criminal actions should be weakened.
“What kind of world are we living in … if a president orders his SEAL team to murder a political rival and then resigns or is not impeached — that is not a crime? I think that is an extraordinarily frightening future that should weigh heavily on the court’s decision,” Pearce said.
At one point, Judge Florence Pan, another Biden appointee, noted that Trump’s legal team argued essentially the opposite case when he faced a second impeachment, in this case for his conduct related to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
During that trial Trump’s attorneys argued there was no need to censure Trump, as prosecutors could bring charges if there was any criminal conduct to weigh.
“It seems many senators relied on that,” Pan said.
Sauer later argued the threat of prosecution could have a chilling effect on future presidents’ decisions, saying they would need to look over their shoulder and ask, “Am I going to jail for this?” when making controversial decisions.