In the course of Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing, Trump lawyer John Sauer was made to appear silly hoping to protect his declare that the president would get immunity even if he assassinates his political rival.
Justice Sotomayor was not amused.
Sotomayor: Your solution under, I am going to give you a possibility to say if you stay by it – if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military services or orders another person to assassinate him, is that in just his formal acts for which he can get immunity?
Sauer: It would count on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an formal act.
Sotomayor: It could. And why? Simply because he is accomplishing it for personalized factors. He’s not executing it like President Obama is alleged to have done it, to secure the nation from a terrorist. He’s executing it for private acquire.
Sotomayor: And is not that the character of the allegations in this article? That he’s not doing these functions in furtherance of an official obligation. He is executing it for personalized get.
Sauer: I concur with that characterization of the indictment, and that confirms immunity. For the reason that the characterization is that there is a sequence of formal acts that were completed for an unlawful or incorrect purpose.
Sotomayor: No, simply because immunity claims even if you did it for own acquire, we will not likely maintain you responsible. What do you, how could that be?
Just, how could that be? That be, it are unable to. (See what I did there? I created up a phrase like Trump’s legal professional is producing up a new type of immunity that would make any president a King)
Be the first to comment