0
0
Trump’s Lawyer’s Questionable Claims of Broad Presidential Immunity
During a recent Supreme Court hearing, Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, made bold assertions regarding the extent of presidential immunity. However, both liberal and conservative justices appeared unconvinced by the arguments presented.
Debunking the Claims
One of the most contentious claims put forward by Trump’s legal team was that he possessed the legal authority to fabricate fake slates of electors. Sauer went as far as citing historical precedent from President Grant’s actions in 1876 as a basis for this assertion.
Furthermore, the legal team argued that actions such as stealing classified documents, inciting the 1/6 attack on the Capitol, and attempting to overturn the presidential election were all part of Trump’s official duties as president. They contended that prosecuting the president for these acts would be unprecedented and unconstitutional.
Spotlight on Judicial Skepticism
Legal analyst George Conway highlighted the skepticism displayed by Justices Sotomayor and Alito during the hearing. When these justices jointly question a lawyer, it is often an indication that the case is weak and likely to be unsuccessful.
The lack of credible legal arguments presented by the Trump legal team underscores the frivolity of the case. Their position seems to support the notion of a president with unchecked powers, akin to a dictator, only accountable through impeachment.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed reluctant to endorse such an anti-democratic stance. While President Biden focuses on rebuilding the country, the legal system continues to scrutinize Trump’s actions, potentially leading to legal consequences.
Image/Photo credit: source url
