In a high-stakes courtroom drama, Donald Trump’s legal team faced a severe setback as they attempted to argue that a former president could escape prosecution for almost any action. The appeals court panel was unimpressed with Trump attorney Dean John Sauer’s defense, leading legal experts to express skepticism about the immunity claims.
Sauer contended that the prosecution, led by special counsel Jack Smith, relied on “official acts” performed by Trump while in office. However, the three-judge panel, notably Justice Florence Pan, raised eyebrows with hypothetical scenarios, questioning the legitimacy of claims that a president could be immune, even when ordering the assassination of a political rival.
“Judge Pan is absolutely destroying the absolute immunity argument by using Trump’s own argument,” remarked legal analyst Chris Geidner. And then Judge [J. Michelle] Childs, and then Judge [Karen] Henderson. Unless something unusual happens, this is over.”
Political analyst Sarah Reese Jones highlighted a crucial moment in the proceedings, stating, “Trump’s immunity argument gets destroyed when a federal appeals court judge asks, ‘Could a president order S.E.A.L. Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act and order to Seal Team 6?'”
National security attorney Bradley Moss raised a provocative question, challenging MAGA legal pundits: “If Trump wins this argument, why would Biden even bother waiting for election day? He could have him eliminated, along with GOP congressional allies, and be immune.”
Sauer clung to the argument that a president could only be prosecuted after impeachment and conviction, but the judges appeared unconvinced, with legal analyst Harry Litman calling it an “untenable argument.”
Esquire columnist Charles Pierce hailed Judge Florence Pan as the star of the court proceedings, noting, “Judge Pan is enjoying pointing out that the former president’s lawyers have effectively demolished their case for absolute immunity.”
Legal analyst Asha Rangappa pointed out an intriguing inconsistency in Trump’s defense, saying, “It’s interesting that for the purpose of presidential immunity, Trump argues that running as a candidate and holding office are one and the same. But when it comes to applying Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump wants to split hairs on ‘running’ and ‘holding’ office. No principle.”
Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann expressed shock at Trump’s counsel, stating, “It’s shocking to hear Trump’s counsel say a president is free to sell pardons and eliminate political opponents, unless and until successfully impeached.”
Political analyst Goldie Taylor drew parallels to history, stating, “Nixon had no impeachment and conviction, yet was granted a Presidential pardon covering those crimes. That alone means a former president can be prosecuted with or without an impeachment process. There is no immunity.”
As the courtroom drama unfolded, longtime newspaper editor Mark Jacobs summed it up bluntly, “Listening to the appellate court hearing on Trump’s immunity claim. “Good lord, his lawyer is a dipshit.”
