The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in former President Donald Trump’s immunity claims today. The justices are examining the question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” One of the more outlandish questions brought up was a hypothetical about legality of a sitting president ordering a political assassination.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Trump attorney D. John Sauer, “If the president decides his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” Sauer responded, “It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that could well be an official act.”
Sotomayor stated, “It could, and why? Because he’s doing it for personal reasons, he’s not doing it at, like, president Obama’s alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist, he’s doing it for personal gain, and isn’t that the nature of the allegations here? That he’s not doing them, doing these acts, in furtherance of an official responsibility, he’s doing it for personal gain.”
Sauer responded, “I agree with that characterization of the indictment, and that confirms immunity because the characterization is that there is a series of official acts that were done for an unlawful or improper purpose.” Sotomayor interjected, “No, because immunity says even if you did it for personal gain we won’t hold you responsible, what do you, how could that be?”
