An unsettled contradiction at the heart of Trump’s immunity claim

As Donald Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, tried to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that his client should have immunity from prosecution, there was a phrase the defense attorney turned to on several occasions.

“A former president,” Sauer said, “has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts, unless he was first impeached and convicted” in Congress. What if a president were to sell nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary? He or she “would have to be impeached and convicted first,” the attorney told the justices. What if a president tried to stage a coup? He or she “would have to be impeached and convicted,” he added.

It is, to be sure, a difficult argument to take seriously. The presumptive GOP nominee’s defense counsel apparently expects the judiciary to agree that a former president might be subject to prosecution — for some of the most outrageous felonies imaginable — but only if a majority of the U.S. House and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate act first.

But it’s not just foolish. It’s also the opposite of what the Republican’s lawyers said during Trump’s second impeachment trial. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes was understandably exasperated by this as the oral arguments progressed.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...iction-heart-trumps-immunity-claim-rcna149502

Trump’s legal flip-flops get their day in court

“We have a judicial process in this country; we have an investigative process in this country to which no former officeholder is immune,” Trump attorney David Schoen said at the time. “That is … the appropriate one for investigation, prosecution and punishment, with all of the attributes of that branch.”

Schoen argued that the courts were best prepared to adjudicate such complex legal issues because Congress “does not and cannot offer the safeguards of the judicial system.”

Fellow Trump lawyer Bruce Castor echoed the point at the time even more directly.

“If my colleagues on this [Democratic] side of the chamber actually think that President Trump committed a criminal offense … after he is out of office, you go and arrest him,” Castor said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/09/trump-immunity-flip-flops/

Surprising? No. Just as the cowardly Mr. Bonespur's policy positions are amorphous depending on situational needs (like requiring the support of anti-abortion voters) so too is his legal defense. One day you can charge a former prez with crimes once out of office and the next day you can't.

As for the issue of absolute immunity, there is SC precedent in a case involving His Orangeness himself.

As president, Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed the absolute authority to do — or not do — pretty much anything he wants. He claimed “total” and “ultimate” authority over dealing with the novel coronavirus. He has claimed to have the "absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department.” He claimed “the absolute right to PARDON myself.” He even said Article II of the Constitution gives him “the right to do whatever I want as president.” And his legal team has repeatedly argued for an extremely broad and in some cases absolute vision of presidential powers.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against one such Trump claim in a key arena — unanimously and rather bitingly so.

As Trump has attempted to fend off a New York state subpoena for his financial records, he has claimed absolute immunity in the case. His legal team asserted that a president not only has immunity from prosecution as president but that he has “temporary presidential immunity” even from being investigated.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-to-2 opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Thursday, rejected that argument, well, absolutely.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...iting-rebuke-one-trumps-many-absolute-claims/

 

You have to remember, trump and his minions only care about putting trump in power and keeping him there. To them nothing else matters.