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.
The discussion also raised the issue of whether a president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute laws allows them to violate criminal laws. Judge Henderson cautioned against the paradoxical notion that a president's duty to uphold laws permits them to break them. Additionally, it was noted that senators, including Senator Mitch McConnell, had suggested that such matters should be handled through criminal prosecution, further contradicting the argument made by Trump's attorneys.
The court also addressed the argument of potential political consequences if a president can be criminally prosecuted, examining examples such as George W. Bush and President Obama. However, the argument against criminal immunity was strong, emphasizing that presidents should not be able to commit criminal acts and evade accountability simply by avoiding impeachment.
Throughout the proceedings, there were references to the historical context, such as President Nixon's acceptance of a pardon and the Iran-Contra investigation, which did not exempt former presidents from potential prosecution. The debate also revolved around the distinction between official and unofficial acts, with the Take Care Clause playing a significant role in determining whether Trump's actions leading up to January 6th were within his official capacity.
Both parties expressed their desire for the court to decide the merits of the case without delay, indicating the importance of reaching a resolution on the issue of presidential immunity. The case could potentially make its way to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
The arguments presented in the courtroom today exposed the perilous implications of granting absolute immunity to a president, effectively allowing them to act with impunity. The court's scrutiny of these arguments highlights the need for a fair and just system that holds individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their position of power.
