Faced with withering questions from both conservatives and liberal members of the Supreme Court, Donald Trump's lawyer went so far as to suggest that a president could have a political rival killed or order a coup as long as it was an "official act".
In one exchange, attorney John Sauer was asked if a president felt his rival was "corrupt," would it be allowable for him to order the military to kill the opponent.
Sauer replied, "That could well be an official act."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
Getting closer to Trump, Sauer was asked by Justice Elena Kagan if a president "staging a coup" to remain in office by using the military would deserve immunity, the ex-president's attorney replied, "It depends on the circumstances," and then added, "It could well be.”
ALSO READ: A neuroscientist reveals how Trump and Biden's cognitive impairments are different
As Sauer was still fielding questions, legal experts doing blow-by-blow reporting on X on the historic hearing expressed shock and awe at how far Sauer was willing to go to defend the former president.
Former Associate White House Counsel Ian Bassin cut right to the chase, writing, "Now Trump’s lawyer is saying a president could order the military to stage a coup to keep him in power and could be immune from any future prosecution. This is INSANE. Trump is putting in fancy legal arguments that the Supreme Court should grant him absolute power if reelected."
The Nation columnist and frequent MSNBC legal analyst Elie Mystal suggested, "Kagan asking Sauer if a President *literally ordering a coup* would be an official act. Under Sauer's theory it's an official act and he's trying so hard not to say it and it's like listening to the internal monologue of an addict trying not to hit the pipe again."
"Sotomayor asks Trump lawyer Sauer: If POTUS ordered the military to assassinate a rival, "is that an official act for which he can get immunity?" Sauer: "could well be an official act" Trump is seeking dictatorial powers," offered attorney Norm Eisen.
Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa wrote, "LOL Sauer is arguing that there's no downside of absolute immunity because there are structural and institutional checks (e.g., the military wouldn't follow illegal orders, etc.). Let's check in with Jeffrey Clark on that one."
"Why is Trump's lawyer pushing such extreme claims with no precedent that may lose justices, when narrower claims may work better?" asked MSNBC host Ari Melber. "Maybe he's most focused on delay (hoping they will at least order more official acts hearings in lower court), maybe he feels limited by client."
"Justice Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity? Trump Attorney: That could well be an official act. Is he arguing for Trump or Putin?" the official Lincoln Project account offered.
Fox News host Howard Kurtz expressed his belief that Trump's attorney was arguing a losing case, writing, "Based on SCOTUS questions, right and left, I see no way the court would grant a president absolute immunity. The examples - election fraud, bribery, coup, assassination - forces Trump lawyer to admit these are private acts, not protected, though he insists 'official acts' are."
And, finally, conservative attorney and frequent Trump critic George Conway found humor in attorney Sauer's attempts to make his case, as you can see below or at this link.
