Trump endorses idea he should be able to assassinate opponents without being prosecuted
The idea was put forward by the former president’s lawyers earlier this week
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Donald Trump appeared to endorse the idea that he should have immunity from ordering the assassination of political opponents, which was put forward by his lawyers earlier this week.
During arguments in a Washington DC courtroom on Tuesday, Trump attorney D John Sauer, was questioned on whether, hypothetically, a president could order the killing of a rival by the US military and be immune from any legal consequences.
Mr Saur said that prosecution would only be allowed following impeachment and a conviction by the Senate.
He was then pressed by Judge Florence Pan, who said: “I asked you a yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival ... would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
“Qualified yes – if he is impeached and convicted first,” replied Mr Saur.
James Pearce, the Assistant Special Counsel who argued the case for the US government, said Mr Sauer’s comments suggested “an extraordinarily frightening future” because his view would place presidents largely outside and above the law.
On Thursday Mr Trump was asked whether he agreed with his lawyer’s stance on prosecution for such crimes.
“On immunity [it’s] very simple,” he said at a press conference on Thursday amid his ongoing civil fraud trial in New York.
“If a president of the United States does not have immunity, he’ll be totally ineffective because he won’t be able to do anything because it will mean he’ll be prosecuted, strongly prosecuted perhaps, as soon as he leaves office by the opposing party.
“So a president of the United States, I’m not talking just me, has to have immunity.”
Nikki Haley mocked Mr Trump’s presidential immunity legal defence as ‘ridiculous’ during Wednesday night’s Republican debate in Iowa.
“No, that’s ridiculous. That’s absolutely ridiculous,” said Ms Haley. “You can’t go and kill a political rival and then claim, you know, immunity from a president. I think we have to start doing things that are right.”
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments