In a momentous court case today, the appellate court heard arguments regarding the immunity of a former president of the United States for actions taken while in office. The counsel for Donald Trump's legal team, D. John Sauer, made a significant concession, stating that a president could be prosecuted under certain circumstances, contradicting the claim of absolute immunity. However, Sauer added that the condition for criminal prosecution would be impeachment and conviction by the Senate.
The court engaged in a fascinating exchange with Trump's attorney, which took an unexpected twist. Sauer changed the argument from their original brief, stating that a president or former president can only be criminally prosecuted if they have already been impeached and convicted by the Senate. This led to a hypothetical scenario where Judge Florence Pan asked whether a president could order the assassination of a political rival without facing criminal prosecution if they were not impeached. Sauer responded with a qualified yes, which was a startling moment that highlighted the dangerous implications of such an argument.
