As Donald Trumpthe lawyer of D. John Sauertried to convince the United States Supreme Court that his client should benefit from immunity from prosecutionthere was a phrase that the defense attorney turned to several occasions.
“A former president” Sauer said, “shall enjoy permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he has first been indicted and convicted” by Congress. What if a president sold nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary? He or she “should first be indicted and convicted,” the lawyer told the judges. What if a president tried to stage a coup? He or she “should be indicted and convicted,” he added.
Summarizing his position, Sauer said at one point: “I will say in response to all these types of hypotheses: [a president] must be indicted and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted.
This is certainly a difficult argument to take seriously. The presumptive Republican Party nominee’s defense lawyer apparently expects the judiciary to agree that a former president can be prosecuted — for some of the most outrageous crimes imaginable — but only if a majority of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate act first. .
But it’s not just stupid. This is 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 situation as the oral arguments progressed.
Something that drives me a little crazy, I admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS, during his impeachment, told senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if he was Thus. They now argue that the only way to prosecute him is to convict him.
– Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) April 25, 2024
This may seem a bit complicated at first glance, but it’s actually quite simple:
-
In early 2021, Trump’s lawyers said during his second impeachment trial that there was no need for the Senate to convict the former president because the matter was better left to the judiciary.
-
In early 2024, Trump’s lawyers said the former president’s alleged crimes could not be left to the judiciary because the Senate had not voted to convict him.
The Washington Post published an excellent analysis about it in January, highlighting specific claims made by the former president’s defense attorney — out loud, on camera, during the Senate impeachment trial.
“We have a judicial process in this country; we have an investigative process in this country that no former official is immune from,” Trump lawyer David Schoen said at the time. “It is … the appropriate branch for investigations, prosecutions and sanctions, with all the attributes of this branch.”
Schoen then argued that the courts were better prepared because Congress “does not and cannot provide the safeguards of the judicial system.”
Shortly after, Bruce Castor, another member of Trump’s legal team, was even frank on this point: “If my colleagues on…
