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.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    250
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    So this means its open Trump hunting season for Biden, right? It is totally legal and cool for him to assassinate Trump, right??


    Of course we all know they intend for this argument to only apply to Trump.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Stuff like this is what I wish would happen.

      Like the german nazi party desperately wants more people to be evicted from Germany, I say great, evict the AfD politicians and their voters! Wooot! Everyone happy!

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Right, when the right wing fuckos trot out their obviously bad-faith arguments, we should be taking to them to their logical fucking conclusions right the fuck away.

        It would be beautiful to see the entire Republican wing of the house pissing themselves and losing their shit knowing that an assassin from Biden could get them at any moment. Especially after the first few drop and Biden just says “it’s me, it’s totally legal and cool, right?” Also making sure to drop the first 20-or-so at the same time so right after it happens the Dems have a majority in both the House and Senate so no Republican can actually bring a vote for impeachment.

        They’d be screaming bloody murder because the only thing they actually care about is their own skins.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Nah, let them keep a majority in the house. They vote to impeach, the Senate acquits, then he goes for round two…

    • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Trump is not a very good walker. Very weak steps. Maybe it will be a sort of accident? Is that the ruzzian way or what?

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

      I know Elmer always lost, but I still want to see Trump being chased by Biden with a rifle like Elmer Fudd. Real life doesn’t have to imitate the cartoon.

    • yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      No. If you read the article, you’ll see that this isn’t Sauer’s argument. It’s another ragebait title, and based on the comments in this thread, it’s working.

      EDIT: Okay, I see the flaw in my thinking. Carry on.

      • Heresy_generator@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        His argument is that there would be no possible legal recourse if a US president tried to seize absolute power the way Saddam Hussein did in Iraq, by having everyone in the legislature that might oppose him lined up and shot.

      • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah it is. Maybe you’d like to think there’s some subtlety we’re missing because Sauer stated the President would need to be impeached to lose immunity, but what happens if the President assassinates anyone who would impeach him?

      • modifier@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Oh right on, hey call it off guys and gals. This dude read the article and says democracy is going to be just fine.

        Edit: much respect to anyone willing to update their conclusions based on new input.

    • Godnroc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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
      2
      ·
      10 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
    90
    ·
    edit-2
    10 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
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 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
        8
        ·
        10 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
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 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
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 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.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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.

    • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well being President is sort of like being a Star. And as well all know, if you’re a Star they let you do it. Orange Julius was talking about underage pageant contestants at the time, but I think the same principle applies here.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      What a fitting show for this timeline it would’ve been to see Putin and Trump competing for the president 🤔

  • Lemminary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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
      ·
      10 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.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Pan reframed the question to include a hypothetical where a president ordered assassination and then was not impeached, and Sauer still hung on to “impeachment has to happen first.”

  • vexikron@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    And so after years upon years upon decades of rhetoric from Republicans warning about the growing power of the Executive and the abuses of the Executive by FDR…

    … uh, nevermind all that apparently, if our guy is in charge he should be able to just unilaterally assasinate political rivals.

    You know. Like anyone that would vote to impeach him. For assassinating political rivals.

    This is literal baby brain logic that actual Elementary School Children could probably understand is stupid.

    Hooray for living in Clown World, the dumbest possible timeline.

    This is basically logic that can only possibly have come from serious QTard Syndrome, Terminal Stage. Its the only way possible for /the Storm/ to actually happen.

  • Tremble@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 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!