Donald Trump, never one to shy away from brazen assertions, has ventured into uncharted legal territory with a claim so audacious it sent shockwaves through the judicial system. His latest argument? As a former president, he is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution, even for the unthinkable act of ordering the assassination of a political rival.
This bombshell claim, delivered by his lawyer D. John Sauer during a federal appeals court hearing, rests on a controversial interpretation of the Constitution’s “impeachment judgment clause.” According to Sauer, this clause not only ensures removal from office for convicted presidents but also shields them from any subsequent criminal charges. It’s a stunning proposition, one that throws a wrench into the very notion of accountability for the highest office in the land.
But the legal community is far from convinced. Legal scholars across the spectrum have denounced Sauer’s argument as demonstrably false and utterly lacking in constitutional basis. The clause itself clearly states that conviction in Senate impeachment proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution. Yet, Sauer contorts this straightforward language to suggest a two-pronged immunity shield: first, no prosecution without conviction, and second, no prosecution even after acquittal.
Such a reading flies in the face of legal precedent and logic. It essentially empowers the Senate to grant a blanket pardon for any presidential misconduct, regardless of its severity. As law professor Abner S. Greene argues, this interpretation “ignores the plain text of the clause and would effectively create a king, not a president.”
Trump and Absolute Immunity
Trump’s pursuit of absolute immunity is not new. Throughout his turbulent presidency, he has consistently sought to expand his executive power and shield himself from legal scrutiny. His previous assertions, like the infamous Fifth Avenue shooting remark, hinted at a deep-seated belief in his own unassailability. Now, he’s taking it a step further, attempting to rewrite the rules of justice itself.
The potential consequences of this gambit are staggering. Should Trump’s argument prevail, it would establish a perilous precedent, undermining the fundamental principle of equal justice under the law. Presidents, emboldened by their perceived impunity, could potentially engage in egregious acts with little fear of consequence. The very fabric of our democracy, built on the bedrock of checks and balances, would be severely weakened.
However, the path to absolute immunity is far from smooth. The three-judge panel hearing the case is unlikely to embrace Sauer’s fantastical legal interpretation. Awaiting them is a labyrinth of legal hurdles, each presenting an opportunity to pierce through the flimsy veil of Trump’s argument.
Bid for Time
Even if he loses at the initial level, Trump has a well-established playbook. He may appeal to the full D.C. Circuit Court, then to the Supreme Court itself. Every step of the way, he’ll buy time, hoping to delay the trial beyond the crucial November elections.
Should he manage to win the presidency again, the scenario becomes even more chilling. Armed with renewed executive power and a potential self-pardon, Trump could effectively render the criminal justice system powerless against him.
The possibility of Trump achieving such a level of unaccountability is a chilling prospect. It’s a testament to the enduring threat he poses to American democracy, even after leaving office. But amidst the darkness, there are glimmers of hope. The swift and strong condemnation of his claims by legal experts and the public alike demonstrates the resilience of our democratic institutions and the commitment to justice that runs deep within American society.
Also Read: Earthquake felt in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan
The fight against Trump’s quest for absolute immunity is far from over. It will be a long and arduous struggle, but it’s a fight worth having. For at stake is not just the fate of Donald Trump, but the very soul of our nation.
This rewritten article expands on the original text by providing additional context, analysis, and commentary. It delves deeper into the legal arguments, explores the potential consequences of Trump’s claim, and highlights the broader implications for American democracy.
2 thoughts on “Trump can shoot someone in the middle of the road and still cannot be charged”