It was maybe the most memorable moment so far in Donald Trump’s case for “absolute presidential immunity” — and it could come up again at the U.S. Supreme Court in historic arguments on Thursday.
The arresting question: Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not face criminal prosecution?
“I asked you a yes-or-no question,” Judge Florence Pan said during the arguments.
“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival [and] who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
He also predicted that if a president did order an assassination, he would be “speedily” impeached.
When justices hear arguments in the case on Thursday, Sauer will again be representing Trump.
The immunity question presents an unprecedented constitutional quandary for the Supreme Court.
Trump is the first ever president — current or former — to face criminal charges.
In Donald Trump’s case for “absolute presidential immunity,” it was perhaps the most memorable moment to date. This could be the case again at the U.S. S. Supreme Court on Thursday in historically significant arguments.
Is it possible for a commander in chief to direct SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent without being prosecuted?
His attorney said that in some cases, he could.
It was a U-shaped exchange. s. Trump brought his immunity fight to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington in January, following the court’s categorical rejection of the theory. s. His federal election subversion case is being handled by District Judge Tanya Chutkan.
During the arguments, Judge Florence Pan said, “I asked you a yes-or-no question.”. “Would a president face criminal prosecution if he gave the order to SEAL Team 6 to kill a political rival and wasn’t impeached?”.
“If he were impeached and found guilty first,” John Sauer, a Trump lawyer, retorted.
Pan responded, “So your answer is no.”.
Trying to avoid giving a clear-cut yes or no, Sauer stated that his response was a “qualified yes,” maintaining that criminal liability could not be considered until after a House impeachment and Senate conviction. Additionally, he forecast that a president would be “speedily” impeached if he did order an assassination.
James Pearce, a government attorney representing special counsel, described such a theory as “frightening.”. “.”.
“What kind of world are we living in?” questioned Pearce. “It’s not a criminal act . if, as my friend on the other side purported, a president orders a SEAL team to kill a political rival and resigned, for instance, prior to an impeachment. That seems like a very scary future to me. “.
In a unanimous ruling, the three judges rejected Trump’s claim of immunity, saying they could not agree with his claim that the president has “unbounded authority to commit crimes.”. A position like this would “collapse our system of separated powers,” they warned. “.
The former leader challenged that decision before the U.S. S. Supreme Court.
The consequences of Sauer’s response were immediate, and they are still largely mentioned in amicus briefs that are being submitted to the high court while it considers the case. Trump will once more be represented by Sauer when the justices hear arguments in the case on Thursday.
The military would not execute a president’s order to kill a political rival, even if it were given, according to a trio of former military leaders who supported Trump in a filing. They added that this is true regardless of the immunity debate.
However, in a brief endorsing special counsel Jack Smith, several experts on national security expressed less confidence that subordinates would defy a presidential order.
“The absence of safeguards for federal courts against coercion by an illegal president leading Seal Team 6 or any other U.S. military unit poses a serious threat to the rule of law.”. s. Armed Forces “the synopsis stated.
For the Supreme Court, the immunity question poses an unprecedented constitutional conundrum. Before now, no president has ever been charged with a crime, including President Trump.
