Trump Lawyer Makes Disturbing Immunity Claim Before Supreme Court
Donald Trump’s lawyer pushed an outrageous line of thinking on Thursday during oral arguments at the Supreme Court over whether the former president has immunity for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election: that a U.S. president could order a military coup d’état with almost no chance of repercussions.
Justice Elena Kagan asked lawyer John Sauro about a hypothetical president who “ordered the military to stage a coup.”
“He’s no longer president. He wasn’t impeached, he couldn’t be impeached, but he ordered the military to stage a coup, and you’re saying that’s an official act?” she asked.
“I think it would depend on the circumstances whether it was an official act,” Sauer replied. “If it’s an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction before [criminal charges could be pursued].”
In response to other questions from the justices, Sauer defended a hypothetical political assassination ordered by an American president, the argument that sank Trump’s case in the D.C. circuit.
“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“That could well be an official act,” Sauer said.
Sauer also claimed a president could come up with a fake slate of electors to overturn an election, a brazen assertion in light of recent events. Putting forward slates of fake electors has already resulted in criminal charges in four states: Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia. Trump himself directly faces charges for trying to overturn the 2020 election results in the Peach State.
Questions from Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson soon had Sauer backpedaling, especially after Sotomayor pointed out he had essentially argued that an “allegation of improper purpose cannot drive immunity.”
Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court to rule on his immunity has already delayed his election interference case in Washington, D.C. Depending on how the high court rules, arguably the most serious of his many legal cases could be delayed even further, or perhaps rendered moot.