Trump Lawyers Distort His Second Impeachment History in Attempt to Invoke Presidential Immunity
Former President Donald Trump's lawyers are attempting to persuade a panel of three skeptical justices in a DC appeals court, that he has broad presidential immunity from criminal prosecution because the Senate never decided to convict him.
Even if the then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Trump's own impeachment attorney had offered the exact opposite defense just three years ago—that Trump might still be held legally responsible for his acts as President—as Trump's get-out-of-jail-free card, per TIME Magazine. Trump is contesting a lower court ruling that determined he is not protected by presidential immunity in the election interference criminal lawsuit Special Counsel Jack Smith filed on Trump's conduct before the Capitol storming on January 6.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan decided in that case, ruling that Trump “former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability” and that “may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”
After Trump's lawyers decided to appeal that ruling, in December, Special Counsel Jack Smith requested that the Supreme Court decide on whether President Trump is immune from prosecution for conduct he took while in office right away, something that was rejected, per The Guardian. The lower court will now have to make that determination. Trump's lawyers continue to be adamant that Trump is protected by presidential immunity.
Today, Trump’s lawyers argued that you can only indict a president if he’s been impeached and convicted by Congress. But check out the argument Trump’s lawyers made during his impeachment. And the judges brought this up today during the immunity hearing. pic.twitter.com/VNu7JmCrDH
— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) January 9, 2024
But in February 2021, McConnell said, “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.” Even Trump's own lawyer at the time, David Schoen, admitted, “We have a judicial process in this country; we have an investigative process in this country to which NO former officeholder is immune.”
The judges of the appeals court grilled Trump's legal team within the courtroom over prior claims made by Trump's attorneys that the real estate magnate would face charges for his activities while in office. As Trump, who was present in person, watched, the three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit indicated special concern with the view that he had absolute immunity from prosecution.
During the approximately ninety-minute session in Washington, Trump's attorney John Sauer was schooled by circuit judge Karen Henderson, a George HW Bush appointee, “I think it is paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law.”
Judge Florence Pan of the Circuit Court led the inquiry, asking a range of hypotheticals under Trump's attorneys' purview, that a president could, in theory, self-pardon, sell military secrets, or order the death of political opponents. At first, Trump's attorney tried to sidestep the hypotheticals by contesting whether or not they constituted "official acts." However, he finally conceded, delivering a "qualified yes," that presidents might face legal action if they had previously been found guilty in a Senate impeachment trial.
