CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins pressed an attorney for former President Trump on a line of questioning by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in the former president’s presidential immunity case at the Supreme Court Thursday.
“What are the circumstances where ordering a military coup is an official act of the presidency?” Collins said, referring to a back-and-forth between Kagan and Trump lawyer D. John Sauer in which she questioned him on presidential immunity in the case of a president ordering the military to stage a coup.
“When you’re talking about official acts, you don’t look to intent, you don’t look to purpose, you look to their underlying character,” Scharf responded.
“So if that were — if that sort of situation were to unfold using the official powers of the president, you could see there being an aspect of officialness to that.” The two went back and forth, and Collins later remarked that Sharf was making “a pretty brazen argument, that military coups could potentially be official acts.” Sharf retorted that the argument is not meant to justify such things, but to define the scope of immunity presidents have been acting in office.
“Just because a military coup or any of these sort of parade of horribles could constitute an official act doesn’t mean that they’re right, doesn’t mean that they would be allowed under a constitutional system and doesn’t mean that we’re in any way shape or form justifying that,” he said.
“What we’re talking about here, though, is the scope of immunity that presidents need to be able to rely on to discharge their core article to responsibilities as president.” When asked about if a president ordering “the military to stage a coup” is an “official act” by Kagan on Thursday as the Supreme Court held a hearing on Trump’s claims of immunity, Sauer responded that “it could well be.”
In the former president’s case involving presidential immunity at the Supreme Court on Thursday, CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins questioned a former president Trump’s lawyer along certain lines set by Justice Elena Kagan.
After exchanging questions with Trump’s attorney D. John Sauer regarding presidential immunity in the event that a president orders the military to stage a coup, Collins questioned, “What are the circumstances where ordering a military coup is an official act of the presidency?”.
Scharf retorted, “You look to their underlying character when you’re talking about official acts; you look to intent and purpose.”. “There might be an air of officialness to that, if that kind of situation were to arise with the president’s official powers employed.”. “.
After they exchanged views, Collins said that Sharf was putting forth “a pretty brazen argument, that military coups could potentially be official acts.”. “.
Sharf retorted that the goal of the argument is to define the extent of immunity that presidents have been acting under while in office, not to justify such actions.
“It doesn’t mean that they’re right, that they would be permitted under a constitutional system, or that we’re in any way, shape, or form justifying that just because a military coup or any of these sort of parade of horribles could constitute an official act,” the speaker stated. We are discussing here, however, the extent of immunity on which presidents must be able to carry out their fundamental duties as head of state. “.
During a hearing on Trump’s claims of immunity at the Supreme Court on Thursday, Sauer was asked if a president ordering “the military to stage a coup” is an “official act.” To which Kagan replied, “it could well be.”. “.
