Did Trump’s Lawyers Really Argue for Presidential Assassination?
Introduction
In a shocking legal argument, lawyers representing former President Donald Trump claimed that a president could order the military to assassinate a political rival without facing prosecution, as long as Congress approved. This argument was presented in a real courtroom before US judges, and legal experts have expressed skepticism regarding its validity and legality.
The Absurd Argument
Doron Kalir, a law professor at Cleveland State University College of Law, quickly dismissed this argument as ridiculous and misinterpreting the Constitution. He stated that if a student made the same argument, they would receive a low grade for misunderstanding what the Constitution states.
Judges’ Skepticism
The three appeals-court judges who heard the argument during the federal election-interference case against the former president also seemed skeptical. Judge Florence Pan posed hypothetical situations, including whether a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and avoid criminal prosecution. This line of questioning clearly illustrated the judges’ doubts about the argument made by Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer.
The Flawed Absolute Immunity Claim
Trump’s lawyer argued for the concept of “absolute immunity,” asserting that the president cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions taken while in office. However, legal experts have frequently dismissed this notion. President Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon established that former presidents can be subject to criminal prosecution after leaving office. The argument of absolute immunity has largely been discredited by the legal community.
The Misinterpretation of the Constitution
An important provision cited by Trump’s lawyers, Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, does not support their argument. The provision states that impeachment does not prevent criminal prosecution, regardless of whether the Senate convicts the official or not. This debunks Trump’s lawyer’s claim that criminal prosecution can only happen if the president is impeached and convicted.
Possible Motives and Consequences
Legal experts speculate that the strategy behind these absurd arguments is to delay the trial as much as possible. By doing so, Trump may be able to either get reelected and potentially pardon himself or dismiss the federal case, both of which would lead to additional legal challenges. While the argument failed from a legal perspective, it may have achieved its tactical aim of prolonging the trial.
Conclusion
Although Trump’s lawyers made an outlandish argument in court, suggesting that a president could order the assassination of a political rival without facing consequences, legal experts promptly refuted this claim. The judges’ skepticism further undermined the credibility of the argument. While it remains to be seen how the trial will unfold, it is evident that this line of defense is unlikely to succeed in court.
