Trump criticizes Obama’s drone strike errors after court hearing on immunity
Trump Faces Skeptical Appeals Court Hearing Over Presidential Immunity
Former President Donald Trump made a dramatic appearance at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C., as he faced a skeptical appeals court hearing regarding his claim of presidential immunity in his federal 2020 election interference case. The hearing sparked a wide-ranging discussion that delved into controversial topics such as selling pardons, assassinating political rivals, and the use of drone strikes by former President Barack Obama.
Trump, known for his unconventional campaign style, spoke from his former hotel in Washington, D.C., after the hearing. He argued that if presidential immunity does not apply to his case, then Obama should be charged for his alleged excessive use of drone strikes on innocent civilians. Trump acknowledged that these strikes were mistakes and emphasized the importance of not putting a president in such a position.
During the hearing, Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, argued that Trump was acting within his official duties as president when he challenged the 2020 election results. Sauer contended that Trump should be protected from criminal prosecution due to his previous acquittal by the Senate on similar allegations. However, the three-judge panel appeared unconvinced by this argument.
Judge Florence Pan: Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, be subject to criminal prosecution?
John Sauer: If he were impeached and convicted first.
Pan: So, your answer is no?
Sauer: My answer is a qualified yes.
Trump’s defense counsel maintained that his efforts to question and challenge the election results were quintessential presidential acts that should be protected from indictment. They cited a Supreme Court precedent known as Harlow v. Fitzgerald to support their argument.
James Pearce, an attorney for special counsel Jack Smith’s office, expressed concern that if Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the election were allowed without the possibility of criminal charges, it would set a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
The judges also debated whether certain allegations in Smith’s indictment should be considered official presidential business or private conduct. While there were questions about jurisdiction and the timing of the appeal, the judges’ skepticism towards Trump’s arguments suggested that they may rule against him.
The resolution of Trump’s presidential immunity argument will determine when he will go to trial. His legal team has consistently sought to delay the trial until after the November election.
" 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
