Donald Trump appeared to endorse the idea that he should have immunity from ordering the assassination of political opponents, which was put forward by his lawyers earlier this week.
During arguments in a Washington DC courtroom on Tuesday, Trump attorney D John Sauer, was questioned on whether, hypothetically, a president could order the killing of a rival by the US military and be immune from any legal consequences.
Mr Saur said that prosecution would only be allowed following impeachment and a conviction by the Senate.
He was then pressed by Judge Florence Pan, who said: “I asked you a yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival ... would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
“Qualified yes – if he is impeached and convicted first,” replied Mr Saur.
Courtroom sketch of former president Donald Trump— (REUTERS)
James Pearce, the Assistant Special Counsel who argued the case for the US government, said Mr Sauer’s comments suggested “an extraordinarily frightening future” because his view would place presidents largely outside and above the law.
On Thursday Mr Trump was asked whether he agreed with his lawyer’s stance on prosecution for such crimes.
“On immunity [it’s] very simple,” he said at a press conference on Thursday amid his ongoing civil fraud trial in New York.
“If a president of the United States does not have immunity, he’ll be totally ineffective because he won’t be able to do anything because it will mean he’ll be prosecuted, strongly prosecuted perhaps, as soon as he leaves office by the opposing party.
“So a president of the United States, I’m not talking just me, has to have immunity.”
Nikki Haley mocked Mr Trump’s presidential immunity legal defence as ‘ridiculous’ during Wednesday night’s Republican debate in Iowa.
“No, that’s ridiculous. That’s absolutely ridiculous,” said Ms Haley. “You can’t go and kill a political rival and then claim, you know, immunity from a president. I think we have to start doing things that are right.”
