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.

    • Godnroc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Either his actions were treason and the sentence is death or his actions as president were untouchable in which case the president can shoot him without reprise. What a dangerous precedent to set!

    • TechyDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Only if the House didn’t impeach him and the Senate didn’t convict.

      So Biden would also have to kill as many Congressional Republicans as possible to prevent any impeachment vote from succeeding. This “legal theory” is essentially saying “one murder might be criminally liable, but mass murder of political opponents is just fine!”

  • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Here’s a better question, Judge Pan.

    Could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate unsympathetic judges, either of an appeals court or the Supreme Court itself, since that’s an “official act?” Because that might be something worth considering.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      This argument would, in fact, suggest that the president could order a judge assassinated. And I’m guessing the appeals court knows that.

      • winky88@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Like every other grand ol’ projection, I believe this should be interpreted as a threat of things to come, not academic speculation.

  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    “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.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      “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.

      It’s so hilarious that this is the response. Just like Republicans “speedily” impeached Trump after he mounted an insurrection?

      • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      “He would have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,”

      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.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Man, why did Nixon even bother resigning? Why was Clinton or Trump even impeached? They were obviously immune from ever doing anything wrong, ever. The Presidency exists completely outside of the normal checks and balances in our government, the President can just do whatever they want.

  • Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The US really needs to sit down and decide what the president can and cannot do. It won’t be the last time magats try this shit.

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Whatever 33 senators will allow and not vote to convict on an impeachment vote. Under Biden, that is what Debbie Stabenow (33rd most liberal senator) and senators more liberal will allow. Under Trump, that would be what J.D. Vance (33rd most conservative) and more conservative senators would allow.

  • Tremble@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Seal team six perched in the rafters during the state of the union address.

    Biden: And now I will receive a round of applause from my good Republican colleagues. Clap, motherfuckers!

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Remember, his base sees this as strength.

    They don’t care about the means, they want a “strongman” to kill the Americans they see as their enemies for them.

    Modern Republicans don’t give a two shilling shit about democracy, they’d rather have an authoritarian so long as it’s an authoritarian they’re deluded into believing represents their interests.

    Just in case anyone thinks these remarks might make him lose a single vote.

  • badaboomxx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I agree, and at the same time I wonder what the current president could fix the issue with the former? I mean, the current president has immunity right? /s