Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Trump Immunity Claim and the Liberal Justices Are Floating Absurd Hypotheticals, ‘Order Assassinations’ – ‘Kill a Rival’ – ‘Orders Coup’ (AUDIO)

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments on Trump’s presidential immunity claim in Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC.

The case made its way to the Supreme Court after the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Trump was not immune from prosecution.

Trump’s lawyers previously argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.

“In 234 years of American history, no president ever faced criminal prosecution for his official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution exists,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in last month’s filing, according to CBS News. “To this day, no appellate court has addressed it. The question stands among the most complex, intricate, and momentous issues that this Court will be called on to decide.”

John Sauer, a Missouri-based attorney for Trump, gave an opening statement on Thursday and argued that Jack Smith’s indictment uses vague statutes to criminalize “core authority” of the presidency.

As expected, the liberal justices, similar to the appellate court judges, floated absurd hypotheticals.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked John Sauer, “How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup? Is that immune? Is it an official act?”


Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked John Sauer if Trump would be immune from prosecution if he ordered the military to assassinate his political rival.

“…If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity?” Sotomayor asked John Sauer.

Sauer replied, “It would depend on the hypothetical. What we can see that could well be an official act.”

Sotomayor defended Obama’s drone strikes on civilians while attacking Trump.

“He could. And why? Because he’s doing it for personal reasons. He’s not doing it like President Obama is alleged to have done it to protect the country from a terrorist. He’s doing it for personal gain. And isn’t that the nature of the allegations here, that he’s not doing them, doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility? He’s doing it for personal gain,” Sotomayor said.

“I agree with that characterization of the indictment. And that confirms immunity, because the characterization is that there’s a series of official acts that were done for an honorable,” Sauer said.

Sotomayor continue to argue with and interrupt John Sauer.


A three-judge panel for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals previously asked John Sauer if Trump would be immune if he ordered assassinations.

On January 9 a three-judge panel heard oral arguments and appeared skeptical of Trump’s immunity claims – one judge, a Biden appointee, asked attorney John Sauer if Trump would be subject to criminal prosecution if he ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate his political rivals.

This post was originally published on this site