>"Now that we are clear on sovereign immunity for Federal officials generally and Presidential Immunity specifically, we are ready to proceed to considering the recent oral argument in the DC Circuit. "<
I'm afraid we aren't clear on your description of "Absolute" sovereign immunity. You're attempt to move on is noted.
>"During the presentation, Judge Florence You Pan, a Biden appointee, in what appeared to be a pre-planned assault of Constitutional principles, could not help herself from turning the hearing into a sound bite frenzy."<
You point out that the judge is a Biden appointee. Is not Judge Cannon in Florida a Trump appointee? Can we trust her judgments? And really, what difference does it make who appoints the judge as long as the judge follows the Constitution? The facts are still the facts regardless of who appointed the Judge. I suppose we could all be as cynical as you and dismiss every judge as being biased but maybe you could tell me what Federal Judge was NOT appointed by a POTUS? And we have 3 sitting Justices on the SCOTUS. Shall we dismiss them because Trump appointed them? You're demonstrating your own bias here. The Judge's hypothetical is totally relevant to whether the concept of Absolute Immunity is real or not. It's put to a logical test. It's not. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Nobody is above the law in this country. You know that. What law school did you go to that suggested otherwise?
>" The question, which has never before been raised, remains whether a President may be indicted for acts taken in furtherance of his Presidential duties."<
The indictments for J6 and for Mar a Lago were not in furtherance of his Presidential duties. The President has NO role in the outcome of an election, least of all one in which he benefits from the results. That would amount to a conflict of interest and "No man can be a judge in his own cause." That's from the Justinian Code and also from James Madison in Federalist #10.
" No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
Of course, that assumes that the person in question has any integrity.
>"“This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.”<
Where are you quoting this from? It's not from Article II sec 1. But you have quoted it. What is the source? Who are you quoting? And doesn't that statement undermine your argument on another post you made regarding the word "Officer"? As I have pointed out, the POTUS IS the Chief Executive Constitutional Officer of the Executive Branch. He's the CEO of the Executive Branch of the United States. In one of your other posts, you claim that he's NOT an "officer" and yet you post this quote as a complete contradiction to your other post. So, is he an Officer as you have quoted, or is he NOT as your other post claims? Either he is or he isn't. The Law of Non-Contradiction says you cannot be A and be NOT A at the same time. You can't be an officer and not an officer at the same time. And Tribe is a professor at Harvard. Not Yale.
>"As a direct result, no court has had occasion to address whether Presidential Immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts."<
That's meaningless. That's only because no president has ever acted as Trump has acted. It's never happened because we've always had a peaceful transition of power until 2020. Never in our history has any president attempted a coup to stay in power, until Trump. Since Nobody is above the law in this Country, Trump is thereby subject to the criminal laws that any of us are subject to.
>"no President has ever been indicted for his official acts."< Right. It took Donald Trump to do that.
Inciting an insurrection was not an official act. The POTUS has no role in the elections.
Taking Classified Documents when he left is not an official act. The Documents aren't his. They belong to We the People. Taking TS documents prevents the next president from knowing where we stand concerning the documents the former guy took. That intel stays with the office. NOT with the guy who's leaving office.
>"History supports this view because in 234 years of unbroken historical practice—from 1789 until 2023—no President has ever been indicted for his official acts."<
Right. Not until Trump. That's simply because out of 46 Presidents, none have ever done what he did. Bringing up history to suggest because it's never happened before doesn't change the facts of the indictments and 91 charges made against Trump. No other POTUS has ever incited an insurrection to overturn an election because he didn't like the results until Trump. Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean that Trump gets away with being a criminal and not being prosecuted. No other President ever considered doing what he did.
>"No one is discussing a sitting President ordering a SEAL team to assassinate his political rival. On the contrary, we are not talking about any crime as obvious or as serious as that."<
But we are. The very notion of Absolute Immunity in this country, is insane. Absolute means total. Without exception. Complete. It's a hypothetical question, and Yes, hypothetical questioning of expert testimony is permissible, and Sauer is an expert on the Constitution. According to Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert witness may give an opinion in response to a hypothetical question provided that the hypothetical question presents the facts in such a manner that they bear a true and fair relationship to each other and the evidence in the case, is not worded to mislead or confuse the jury, and the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The hypothetical question about SEAL Team 6 challenges the logic of the argument being made that Absolute Immunity for any POTUS is legitimate. No one is above the Law in this country, and the POTUS does NOT need to be impeached and convicted in the Senate before he can be held to account in criminal court. Conviction in the Senate means removal from Office. It doesn't send him to jail. And if the Senate is as tribal and partisan as it is today, you could never convict him and he could avoid being held accountable for anything he does that violates the Law. And if the POTUS can only be charged with a crime if convicted by the Senate, then Biden could order a hit on Trump and never be prosecuted for having ordered it.
>"Now that we are clear on sovereign immunity for Federal officials generally and Presidential Immunity specifically, we are ready to proceed to considering the recent oral argument in the DC Circuit. "<
I'm afraid we aren't clear on your description of "Absolute" sovereign immunity. You're attempt to move on is noted.
>"During the presentation, Judge Florence You Pan, a Biden appointee, in what appeared to be a pre-planned assault of Constitutional principles, could not help herself from turning the hearing into a sound bite frenzy."<
You point out that the judge is a Biden appointee. Is not Judge Cannon in Florida a Trump appointee? Can we trust her judgments? And really, what difference does it make who appoints the judge as long as the judge follows the Constitution? The facts are still the facts regardless of who appointed the Judge. I suppose we could all be as cynical as you and dismiss every judge as being biased but maybe you could tell me what Federal Judge was NOT appointed by a POTUS? And we have 3 sitting Justices on the SCOTUS. Shall we dismiss them because Trump appointed them? You're demonstrating your own bias here. The Judge's hypothetical is totally relevant to whether the concept of Absolute Immunity is real or not. It's put to a logical test. It's not. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Nobody is above the law in this country. You know that. What law school did you go to that suggested otherwise?
>" The question, which has never before been raised, remains whether a President may be indicted for acts taken in furtherance of his Presidential duties."<
The indictments for J6 and for Mar a Lago were not in furtherance of his Presidential duties. The President has NO role in the outcome of an election, least of all one in which he benefits from the results. That would amount to a conflict of interest and "No man can be a judge in his own cause." That's from the Justinian Code and also from James Madison in Federalist #10.
" No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
Of course, that assumes that the person in question has any integrity.
>"“This grant of authority establishes the President as the chief constitutional officer of the Executive Branch, entrusted with supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.”<
Where are you quoting this from? It's not from Article II sec 1. But you have quoted it. What is the source? Who are you quoting? And doesn't that statement undermine your argument on another post you made regarding the word "Officer"? As I have pointed out, the POTUS IS the Chief Executive Constitutional Officer of the Executive Branch. He's the CEO of the Executive Branch of the United States. In one of your other posts, you claim that he's NOT an "officer" and yet you post this quote as a complete contradiction to your other post. So, is he an Officer as you have quoted, or is he NOT as your other post claims? Either he is or he isn't. The Law of Non-Contradiction says you cannot be A and be NOT A at the same time. You can't be an officer and not an officer at the same time. And Tribe is a professor at Harvard. Not Yale.
>"As a direct result, no court has had occasion to address whether Presidential Immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts."<
That's meaningless. That's only because no president has ever acted as Trump has acted. It's never happened because we've always had a peaceful transition of power until 2020. Never in our history has any president attempted a coup to stay in power, until Trump. Since Nobody is above the law in this Country, Trump is thereby subject to the criminal laws that any of us are subject to.
>"no President has ever been indicted for his official acts."< Right. It took Donald Trump to do that.
Inciting an insurrection was not an official act. The POTUS has no role in the elections.
Taking Classified Documents when he left is not an official act. The Documents aren't his. They belong to We the People. Taking TS documents prevents the next president from knowing where we stand concerning the documents the former guy took. That intel stays with the office. NOT with the guy who's leaving office.
>"History supports this view because in 234 years of unbroken historical practice—from 1789 until 2023—no President has ever been indicted for his official acts."<
Right. Not until Trump. That's simply because out of 46 Presidents, none have ever done what he did. Bringing up history to suggest because it's never happened before doesn't change the facts of the indictments and 91 charges made against Trump. No other POTUS has ever incited an insurrection to overturn an election because he didn't like the results until Trump. Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean that Trump gets away with being a criminal and not being prosecuted. No other President ever considered doing what he did.
>"No one is discussing a sitting President ordering a SEAL team to assassinate his political rival. On the contrary, we are not talking about any crime as obvious or as serious as that."<
But we are. The very notion of Absolute Immunity in this country, is insane. Absolute means total. Without exception. Complete. It's a hypothetical question, and Yes, hypothetical questioning of expert testimony is permissible, and Sauer is an expert on the Constitution. According to Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert witness may give an opinion in response to a hypothetical question provided that the hypothetical question presents the facts in such a manner that they bear a true and fair relationship to each other and the evidence in the case, is not worded to mislead or confuse the jury, and the expert’s opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The hypothetical question about SEAL Team 6 challenges the logic of the argument being made that Absolute Immunity for any POTUS is legitimate. No one is above the Law in this country, and the POTUS does NOT need to be impeached and convicted in the Senate before he can be held to account in criminal court. Conviction in the Senate means removal from Office. It doesn't send him to jail. And if the Senate is as tribal and partisan as it is today, you could never convict him and he could avoid being held accountable for anything he does that violates the Law. And if the POTUS can only be charged with a crime if convicted by the Senate, then Biden could order a hit on Trump and never be prosecuted for having ordered it.