This doesn’t sound good for the guy who wants to be Superman, invulnerable to everything:
Judge Florence Pan, a President Joe Biden nominee, posed some striking hypothetical questions to Sauer, to flesh out the bounds of his immunity argument. His legal theory claims former presidents are shielded from prosecution for official actions if there isn’t an impeachment and conviction by Congress first.
“Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act, an order to SEAL Team Six?” Pan asked. [CNN/Politics]
A question that clarifies the bankruptcy of Trump’s immunity assertions. Of course, some far-rightists and those who value money more than good sense will whine about Judge Pan being a Biden appointee, but that just marks them as fourth-raters. Pan’s question lays bare the issue at hand: is the President immune to common-sense constraints? Even Trump’s lawyer half-way conceded the point:
“He would have to be, and would speedily be impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution,” Sauer said.
“I asked you a yes or no question,” Pan said.
“If he were impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied, later insisting that the “political process” of impeachment “would have to occur” before any prosecution could be initiated.
But we are all equal before the law, and if we grant the President some deferrals in special cases, they do not include deferrals, much less exceptions, for what appears to be outright corruption.
It occurs to me that the district court might have declared that the question of immunity need only be decided if a finding of corruption or other law-breaking, as it would be otherwise moot, which is rather the reverse of Trump’s assertion concerning these prosecutions. By continuing the process of litigation, even if the former President is eventually given immunity, the voters will gain important, legitimate information concerning Trump’s guilt, or lack thereof, in these cases, and this is important for making voting decisions.
In the end, actions that benefit the President at the substantial expense and imperilment of the Union do not, in the least, deserve deferral nor immunity, and the suits dependent on the outcome of this litigation definitely fall into this category. Disregarding this facet puts the Country at peril.
