Donald Trump's appeal of presidential immunity that would protect him from accusations of electoral interference or participation in an insurrection before the Circuit of Appeals of the District of Columbia has generated division among the three judges handling the case. During the hearing held last Tuesday, John Sauer, the lawyer for the former president, took his argument to the extreme, pointing out that a president could even assassinate a rival without having to go before Justice if they had not first been subjected to an impeachment in Congress. Although this assertion did not seem to excite the judges, they are hesitant about whether denying that Trump was shielded in his last days in the White House could provoke a partisan hunt against former leaders.
Trump was present in court
Trump went to court, even though his presence was not necessary. Earlier he uploaded a video to his Truth Social account pointing out that, if he does not have presidential immunity, no other former or future president would enjoy it, which would make their job much more difficult. In that sense, he stressed that Biden should prepare himself to accept responsibility for leaving Afghanistan, with the cost in lives it entailed, for leaving Americans abandoned there and for the economic and military cost of leaving millions of dollars and technology in weapons as a consequence of the chaotic withdrawal orchestrated from the White House. He also brought up the more than 8 million illegal immigrants who have crossed the border since 2021 and the alleged payments received by Biden during his time as vice president.
However, Sauer managed to steal the spotlight from Trump by claiming, in response to questions from Judge Florence Pan, that a president could use the SEAL to assassinate a political rival without being prosecuted for it because of his immunity unless Congress could impeach for it and the president was previously deemed guilty by lawmakers. According to the lawyer, the same situation would occur if a president were to sell nuclear secrets. The lawyer also pointed out that his client could not be prosecuted because "presidents have a constitutional duty to ensure that election laws are upheld."
They’re insane
The DEI judges are asking Trump’s lawyer what if Trump had SEAL Team Six assassinate his political rivals pic.twitter.com/Nn7A78E8AD
— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) January 9, 2024
Flood of partisan proceedings against former presidents
This last statement provoked the response of Judge Karen L. Henderson, the only Republican appointee in this case, who said "I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate the criminal law."
However, Henderson herself expressed her reservations about the consequences that would arise if Trump enjoyed presidential immunity despite the accusations regarding his actions in his last days as the leader of the country. According to the judge, it would be "a sweeping decision to deny immunity to former presidents could lead to a flood of partisan prosecutions." Trump reiterated this thought in several posts on Truth Social.
Henderson also noted that the court is considering sending the case back to the trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, for further investigation to determine whether Trump's actions should be treated as official or private acts. If this were to happen, Trump would be closer to achieving his goal of delaying these cases as much as possible.
