An order from a president to the military to conduct a coup to remain in office “might well be an official act,” Donald Trump’s lawyer told the Supreme Court in oral arguments Thursday on the question of whether Trump’s attempted coup is immune from prosecution.
Trump’s claims that his actions leading up to the violent assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are immune from prosecution received skeptical questioning from nearly all of the nine justices, but none more on-point than Elena Kagan’s question about 40 minutes in.
“How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked.
“That might well be an official act,” Trump attorney John Sauer answered.
Thursday morning, just minutes before he was due in the New York City courtroom, he posted three more times about the immunity case in all caps: “WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY FUNCTION, PUTTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN GREAT AND EVERLASTING DANGER!”
sg.news.yahoo.com/trump-tells-scotus-even-military-145343866.html
Justice Sotomayor: “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military…to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?”
Trump’s attorney: “That could well be an official act.”
Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can give immunity? pic.twitter.com/mJCAeE4sXx
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 25, 2024
Trump’s lawyer also argues that presidential immunity also makes it legal for Biden to rig the election.
Sotomayor: What is plausible the president creating a fraudulent slate of electoral candidates? Is that plausible that would be within his right to do?
Sauer: Absolutely pic.twitter.com/VxYZ5m4wXK
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 25, 2024
Fact Check:
The claim that a president would have immunity if they ordered the military to conduct a coup is unsubstantiated and legally dubious. Trump’s lawyer’s assertion during oral arguments is speculative and hypothetical, and legal precedent suggests that such actions would likely be subject to prosecution.
18 U.S. Code § 2385, titled “Advocating overthrow of Government,” outlines that whoever knowingly advocates or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. This statute demonstrates that advocating or attempting to overthrow the government through force or violence is a serious offense under US law.
The claim that presidential immunity makes it legal for Biden to rig the election is false and unsubstantiated. Rigging an election is illegal under various federal and state laws, including laws against election fraud, tampering with voting systems, and conspiracy to defraud the United States. For example, 52 U.S. Code § 20511 prohibits fraudulent voting activities in federal elections, and 18 U.S. Code § 371 prohibits conspiracy to commit offenses against or defraud the United States. These laws demonstrate that rigging an election is a criminal act, and presidential immunity does not provide legal protection for such actions.