Senate GOPers Scoff At Trump’s Lawyers Arguing He Could Legally Kill A Political Rival | EUROtoday

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s declare to whole immunity is a bridge too far for Senate Republicans, even some who’re usually keen to say or do something to indicate their help for the previous president who tried to overthrow democracy.

Trump’s legal professional final week argued earlier than the Supreme Court that the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee can’t be held criminally answerable for something he did as president with out being first impeached and convicted by Congress. This “absolute” immunity, the lawyer mentioned, utilized to outrageous hypotheticals posed by the justices, together with a president ordering a navy coup, promoting nuclear secrets and techniques or directing the assassination of a political rival.

On Wednesday, GOP senators squirmed and scoffed when requested in the event that they agree with Trump {that a} president is immune from being prosecuted for something, together with ordering the homicide of a political opponent.

“Obviously, presidents can’t assassinate political rivals,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned flatly.

The courtroom is prone to reject or sidestep Trump’s bid for whole immunity, and ship the case again to a decrease courtroom for extra deliberation over what counts as an “official” presidential act. Trump’s staff has argued that lots of his actions aimed toward overturning the 2020 election had been a part of his official duties — together with when he directed the submission of fraudulent slates of alternate electors within the election, regardless of President Joe Biden’s victory.

“Well, I mean, there’s got to be some immunity for official acts. The question is, what are those,” mentioned Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). “I don’t know the answer to that.”

Hawley, a lawyer himself, wouldn’t say whether or not he would have made the identical argument about whole immunity that Trump’s legal professionals did earlier than the Supreme Court.

“I’ll do my fellow lawyers the courtesy of not second-guessing them,” he mentioned.

Is there any state of affairs, although, during which a president needs to be granted immunity for assassinating a political rival?

“I have a hard time seeing that,” Hawley lastly mentioned.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), one in every of a handful of Republican senators who voted to convict Trump for inciting an riot, mentioned he positively didn’t agree. He mimicked a gun together with his hand and pointed it at a HuffPost reporter’s head.

“I mean, could I, as president, shoot you in the head?” Cassidy mentioned. “Of course not.”

Some GOP senators, maybe keen to remain in Trump’s good graces, dodged the query and as a substitute tried to check Trump’s actions in workplace to Biden’s.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), one in every of Trump’s high allies on Capitol Hill, recommended that Biden may gain advantage from Trump’s arguments for immunity from prosecution as a result of he may, one way or the other, face authorized hassle over his administration’s insurance policies granting pupil mortgage aid.

“I mean, presidents already have immunity, because if you don’t, they’re gonna go back — we’re gonna have a lot of people go to jail,” Tuberville mentioned. “Yeah, especially this one going against the Supreme Court, you know, forgiving student loans.”

The Supreme Court struck down Biden’s pupil mortgage forgiveness program final 12 months, however not like Trump, Biden hasn’t been charged by the Justice Department and isn’t dealing with jail time over it.

Asked once more if he agrees with Trump’s argument that presidents can get prosecutorial immunity in the event that they order the assassination of a political opponent, Tuberville demurred.

“I ain’t gonna get in on that,” he mentioned. “I mean, that’s crazy.”

Some Democrats warned that the Supreme Court will additional danger damaging its legitimacy if it guidelines in Trump’s favor, or if it sends the case again to an appeals courtroom for extra deliberation. If it does the latter, that will imply Trump wouldn’t go to trial for attempting to overturn the outcomes of a presidential election, regardless of no proof of the widespread voter fraud he claimed.

“This is an ongoing indication of how radical conservatives on the court have lost their way,” mentioned Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). “I mean, you ask any random person on the street, ‘Should any person be above the law, including the president?’ The answer is no.”

“That’s been part of our Constitution. It has been part of the norms of our society. And the Supreme Court is questioning that,” he added. “It’s pretty shocking.”

Strangely, just one Republican senator appeared to convey the identical degree of disbelief that this query is even being mentioned.

“No. No. No immunity. No!” mentioned Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa). “It’s just that simple.”

The closest anybody got here to agreeing with Trump’s legal professionals was when Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) broadly defended the idea of presidential immunity with out an act of Congress. In a Wednesday interview on CNN, Vance, who has been floated as a possible operating mate for Trump, declined to say the place any restrict needs to be.

“You’re basically saying that if the president orders a military coup, you believe the only remediation for that is impeachment?” CNN host Kaitlan Collins requested.

“You’re dealing with hypotheticals here that are completely outside the bounds of this situation,” Vance replied. “Donald Trump did not order a coup, despite the fact that a lot of media people say he did on January the 6th.”

Trump’s whole immunity argument additionally carries an inherent contradiction. By arguing {that a} president can’t be criminally answerable for something they do with out first being impeached and convicted by Congress, that will bar the Senate from convicting them as a result of they wouldn’t be topic to the regulation within the first place.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it to Trump’s legal professionals: “If he’s not covered by the criminal law, he can’t be impeached for violating it at all.”

None of this appeared to matter to Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who mentioned he hasn’t been following Trump’s case however dismissed the query a few president having whole immunity as a result of it was HuffPost asking the query.

“If a president assassinated his political rivals in America, he would be impeached,” Sullivan grumbled, climbing right into a Senate subway automotive.

But would a president even be convicted within the Senate on this state of affairs, on condition that Republicans have already twice refused to convict Trump on critical expenses? The first expenses had been for obstruction of justice and abuse of energy, the second occasion was for inciting an riot.

“Oh, there you go, HuffPost,” Sullivan mentioned, visibly aggravated, because the subway automotive pulled him away.

The Alaska Republican refused to convict Trump on both of the 2 impeachment expenses in opposition to him in his first Senate trial, and once more in his second Senate trial.