FLASHBACK: Trump’s Pick For Solicitor General Argues Presidential Immunity Covers Assassinating Rivals
President-elect Donald Trump nominated Dean John Sauer to be solicitor general on Thursday. Sauer made headlines earlier in the year as he was the attorney who argued that a president could not be criminally prosecuted for ordering SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent – at least not until he was impeached and convicted in the U.S. Senate.
Sauer was Trump’s attorney who argued for presidential immunity for Trump in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court and resulted in the highest court in the country granting former presidents sweeping immunity for “official acts.”
“Most recently, John was the lead counsel representing me in the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States, winning a Historic Victory on Presidential Immunity, which was key to defeating the unConstitutional campaign of Lawfare against me and the entire MAGA Movement,” Trump wrote in his announcement of Saue’s nomination.
If confirmed, Sauer will represent the people of the United States in front of the Supreme Court and will be one of several former personal lawyers of Trump installed at the Justice Department. He has also represented Trump in appealing several civil case verdicts, including those won by E. Jean Carroll and the state of New York.
Sauer made the argument first to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in January. Judge Florence Pan pressed Sauer on various hypothetical scenarios surrounding presidential immunity.
“And so, in your view, could a president sell pardons or sell military secrets? Those are official acts, right? It’s an official act to grant a pardon. It’s an official act to communicate with a foreign government. And such a president would not be subject to criminal prosecution,” Pan asked.
Sauer replied, “The sale of pardons example is an excellent example, because there were allegations about a sale of a pardon, essentially, when it came to President Clinton’s, uh, pardon of Marc Rich and the US DOJ, carefully and for the very reasons we’ve emphasized in our brief, decided not to prosecute President Clinton with that because it raised concerns about whether or not a president could be prosecuted for his official acts, was actually an op-ed in the National Review from our editor.”
Pan pressed, “But your position is that he can’t be prosecuted for that unless he’s impeached?”
Sauer agreed and Pan followed up, “Could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That’s an official act, an order to Seal Team Six.”
Sauer appeared a bit caught of guard and replied, “He would have to be and would speedily be, you know, uh, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution–”
“But there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?” Pan pressed again.
“Chief Justice’s opinion in Marbury against Madison and, uh, uh, and our Constitution and the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause all clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was not,” Sauer replied.
“ I asked you a yes, no, yes or no question. Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?” Pan insisted.
“If he were impeached and convicted first,” Sauer answered.
“So your answer is no,” Pan asked again.
“My answer is qualified. Yes. There’s a political process that will have to occur under the structure of our Constitution, which would require impeachment and conviction by the Senate in these exceptional cases, as the OLC memo number itself points out from the Department of Justice, you’d expect a speedy impeachment conviction.”
Pan wasn’t buying it and replied, “I’ve asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could be taken by a president and could be considered official acts. And I’ve asked you, would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if he’s not impeached or committed? And your answer, your yes or no answer, is no.”
Watch the clip above.
