Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Trump’s Immunity Claim off to Rocky Start in Court
With Trump looking on from beside his lawyers in the courtroom in Washington, the judges poked holes in the legal reasoning behind his claims that presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions they take in office.
“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws,” said Judge Karen Henderson, the lone Republican appointee on the three-judge panel hearing the arguments.
The court seemed especially dismissive of an assertion by Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, that the only way to hold a president accountable for crimes was to first secure a conviction in an impeachment proceeding.
“I’m asking a yes or no question: Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution,” asked Judge Florence Pan.
“If he were impeached and convicted first,” Sauer replied — a response that amounted to an audacious “no.”
The Supremes tried to duck this one by sending it back down to the Appeals Court. Looks like it's being bounced right back upstairs to them with no time wasted.
Comments