TRUMP LAWYER ARGUES TO SUPREME COURT THAT PRESIDENTS SHOULD HAVE IMMUNITY EVEN FOR ORDERING EXECUTION OF A POLITICAL RIVAL

By Miriam Raftery

May 3, 2024 (Washington D.C.) -- In April arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court,  former President Donald Trump’s lawyers argues that presidents should be immune from prosecution for any official acts done while they are in office,  unless the president is impeached and convicted by Congress.  But Trump attorney David Sauer’s argument, if accepted by the high court, would grant a president dictatorial powers even for violent acts committed for personal gain—by his own admission in arguments before the high court.

Liberal justices pushed back on that disturbing proposition.  Justice Elena Kagan pressed Sauer on whether ordering a military coup or selling nuclear secrets to a foreign power would be considered official acts that would prevent criminal prosecution of a president, and Sauer said such acts should be protected by presidential immunity.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor grilled Sauer on whether ordering execution of a political rival would be considered an official act. Sauer replied, “We could well see that as an official act.” Hear recording of this exchange.

Ironically while Trump’s lawyer argued to the justices that only impeachment could hold a president accountable for official acts, Trump’s legal team previously argued during his impeachment trial in January 2020 that only a charged crime could be grounds for impeachment.

The case before the high court will determine whether or not the Justice Department can prosecute Trump for official acts in a pending case accusing the former president and current Republican presidential nominee of election interference and for his role in inciting the violent attack on the U.S. capitol by insurrectionists.

But the conservative majority on the Supreme Court seemed to lean toward remanding the case back to a lower appeals court to determine what is, or isn’t, an official act. Trump’s attorneys have argued, for instance, that his role in a conspiracy to appoint fake electors was an official act.

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts said, “What concerns me is the court of appeals did not get into focused consideration about what acts we’re talking about.”

If the Supreme Court does send the case back to a lower court, or simply stalls on a ruling for a significant period of time, any such delay could prevent  the Department of Justice case against Trump from having its case heard before the November election—and should Trump win, he has vowed to weaponize the Department of Justice to go after his enemies and likely try to pardon himself, along with accused coconspirators.