Legal experts denounced the Trump lawyer’s arguments as authoritarian and illogical.
all three judges on a federal appeals court expressed deep skepticism regarding “immunity” arguments from a lawyer for former President Donald Trump, who is seeking to have federal charges dropped in the case involving his attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Although defendants typically do not attend appellate court hearings, as their lawyers are making arguments about deeper constitutional matters, Trump himself made an appearance at the hearing.
Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, made a forceful but deeply flawed push for the idea that former presidents should have absolute presidential immunity for actions they performed in office, even if those actions were criminal. In order to face accountability of any kind, Sauer argued, a president must first be impeached by the House of Representatives and indicted by two-thirds of the Senate.
Judge Karen LeCraft, one of the three judges Sauer was arguing before, questioned that belief, asking how a former president could be free from scrutiny of any kind after they left the White House.
“I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws,” LeCraft said to Sauer.
Judge Florence Pan was also doubtful of Sauer’s assertions. She posed a test to him — could former presidents be free from accountability for selling pardons, for instance, if they weren’t impeached for doing so?
Sauer responded that “as long as it’s an official act,” an ex-president couldn’t be criminally charged for using their office in such a manner.
