Critique mounts over Biden-appointed judge’s ‘assassinate’ rhetoric in Trump immunity case
Controversy Swirls Around Trump’s Immunity Debate in Supreme Court
An explosive moment in the legal battle concerning former President Donald Trump’s immunity sparked intense debate, as a federal judge’s line of questioning led to backlash from prominent military figures. They claim this is just the latest instance in a pattern of “anti-Trump hysteria” affecting both the judiciary and the press.
Judge Pan: Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to a criminal prosecution?
John Sauer: If he were impeached and convicted first.
Pan: So, your answer is no?
Sauer: My answer is qualified yes.
During what should have been a standard legal procedure, U.S. Appeals Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, posed a hypothetical scenario about presidential powers and criminal prosecution that has sparked considerable discussion. Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, navigated the questioning with caution, emphasizing that criminal prosecution would follow impeachment and conviction by Congress.
Media Sparks and Misinterpretations
Compounding the controversy, the narrative spun by some outlets focused on a sensational interpretation of Trump’s defense, suggesting insensitively that the president’s powers could stretch to the point of assassination without consequence. This interpretation has led to accusations of the media taking the discussion out of context.
Former Military Leaders Enter the Fray
Three veteran military officials have entered the ring, submitting an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, slamming the question’s impertinence and perceived insult. Former Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, and retired Lt. Gen. William Gerald ”Jerry” Boykin provided powerful rebuttals:
- Wilkie condemned the suggestion that soldiers would execute unlawful orders, stressing the military’s commitment to the Constitution.
- Kellogg, with experience alongside Trump, firmly stated that such a directive would never be issued by the former president.
- Boykin reflected on his extensive military experience, asserting the implausibility of servicemen following illegal orders, reminding the public of the necessity to uphold the military’s esteemed image.
The brief argued that any such unlawful order would be disregarded by the armed forces, with the only historical exception being the notorious “My Lai Massacre.”
The Supreme Court’s Decision Ahead
Following a ruling by the appeals court against Trump’s claim of immunity, the case has moved to the Supreme Court. The America First Policy Institute’s brief seeks to clarify that Trump’s legal team does not concur with Judge Pan’s hypothetical scenario and argues for the reversal or vacation of the lower court’s decision if it was influenced by the contentious line of questioning.
The brief emphasizes:
“A president cannot order an elite military unit to kill a political rival, and the members of the military are required not to carry out such an unlawful order; it would be a crime to do so. To the extent that the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a contrary understanding, the judgment should be vacated or reversed,” the brief concluded.
As the nation watches, the implications of this case could have a profound impact on the interpretation of presidential powers and the accountability of those in the highest offices. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling will no doubt be a significant moment in U.S. legal and political history.
Stay informed on the latest political insights and happenings with WASHINGTON SECRETS.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...