It’s Good to be the King
Yesterday’s appeals court hearing involving former President Donald Trump has extended the fierce legal and political debate over Trump’s eligibility as a criminal defendant, and in this particular case, tangentially his suitability as a candidate.
At the heart of Trump’s motion is a bold assertion by his legal team: a sitting president, they argue, possesses “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for actions undertaken while in office, even if those actions include extreme measures such as the assassination of a political rival.
This unprecedented claim challenges conventional interpretations of presidential powers and immunity. It is unprecedented because a) Trump is a sociopath hellbent on authoritarian rule and b) he is advancing every possible legal claim in his defense to avoid trial, and what clearly seems a straightforward conviction.
Cringe Team 6
During the hearing, Trump’s argument of his complete immunity from criminal prosecution was intensely scrutinized by the judges, particularly Judge Florence Pan. She probed Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, with hypothetical scenarios, questioning the limits of this proposed immunity. She asked, ‘can a president, not impeached and not convicted by Congress, evade prosecution for selling pardons or military secrets, or even for ordering an assassination’?
Trump’s D-list legal team advanced the totally normal argument that OF COURSE he could murder some policy wonks if necessary. Duh.
Judge Pan: I asked you a yes or no question. Could a president who asked SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached and convicted, could he be subject to prosecution?
Attorney Sauer: If he were impeached and convicted first.
Pan: So your answer is no?
Sauer: My answer is a qualified yes.
Sure. I understand that in this case outrageous hypothetical scenarios of presidential criminality are useful in an appeals hearing. But, FFS, Seal Team 6? Like we need a comparison to some amped up Xbox game. Ugh, it’s all so exhausting. Is Trump really trying to reinvent the golden Nicolae Ceaușescu days?
Sauer’s “qualified yes” response shows plainly the Trump team’s stance that only impeachment and conviction must precede any criminal liability, a position that is unhinged in its base cruelty and tremendously embarrassing for the office of US president.
This is the kind of thing normally reported out of conflict zones, in war-torn countries. Leaders that claim immunity from all laws, as their actions are righteous and totally justify their murderous means to the end. Americans don’t normally think of their president as part warlord, part politician, which is ridiculous.
9-0, 7-2, or 3-6?
The appeals court decision transcends Trump, touching on the very essence of presidential authority and accountability. Some legal experts have written that this matter will eventually escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially reshaping the American presidency’s future. I’m not sure of such a dramatic outcome, however.
The idea that unchecked criminality would be accepted in the office of the American presidency is absurd. Trump’s efforts are entirely self-serving, so there is less reshaping and more criminating.
SCOTUS is a complete wildcard, however. Assuming the DC Circuit Appeals Court rejects Trump’s immunity claim and returns the case to the District Court, SCOTUS could simply deny cert for Trump’s eventual appeal. This would leave the appeals court decision as settled law, that the presidency is not immune to prosecution, regardless of impeachment.
Or, the Supreme Court could take the case, whereby they specifically clarify the standard of presidential immunity to criminal prosecution. Having a 9-0 affirmative decision in this scenario seems unlikely, with perhaps Thomas and Alito preferring to side with their undemocratic Federalist Society backers.
There exists, however, the remote possibility of a straight party-line vote resulting in a 3-6 outcome, whereby criminal immunity is fully or partially sanctioned in the presidency. That’s the disaster scenario.
For me, the cleanest path is denying cert and letting the appeals court decision stand. That is also a powerful message from SCOTUS, assuming it’s unanimous. But, they could deny cert and also issue dissenting memorandums from the Federalist boys, which would eternally haunt the newly established precedent.
Vote Chud in 2024
Meanwhile, Trump, amidst his 2024 presidential run, remains a central figure on the campaign trail. The MAGA Chuds poll with 78% favorability for Trump, despite all his legal troubles. It is hard for me to understand how a living human person would favor Trump over any other candidate. The levels of self-hate with (R) voters must be off-the-charts.
Trump will be the Republican nominee in Milwaukee on 18-July. However, he might already be in prison and unable to take the stage. Jack Smith might very well harpoon Trump just so perfectly at trial that he’s remanded during his appeal. Roll that 7!
