CNN Analyst Torpedoes Trump By Floating President ‘Kidnapping and Harming’ Supreme Court Justice To Appoint New One

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams torpedoed former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity by floating a scenario in which a president kidnaps and harms a Supreme Court justice in order to appoint a replacement.

Trump attorney John Sauer — the attorney who argued at an appeals court hearing that a president could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival and not face prosecution unless he were impeached and convicted first — argued that same appeal before the Supreme Court on Thursday.

At that hearing, Sauer tripled down by arguing ordering the assassination of rivals “could well be” covered by presidential immunity, as could ordering a military coup.

On Thursday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Williams smacked down that line of thinking with a seemingly bulletproof hypothetical:

COLLINS: Jim Trusty, what was your reaction? Because John Sauer did make a big concession today, in saying that some of that in the indictment is private acts. I’ve never heard them say that before.

JIM TRUSTY: Well, he’s conceding the flavoring of the private acts, provided by Coney Barrett’s questions, which is–

COLLINS: Right. He’s saying they’re allowed.

TRUSTY: –you’re assuming the criminal intent within the — within the actions, which gets you down to very minute factual issues of like, did a — did an elector, a replacement elector feel like they were defrauding? Or were they actually thinking, this is the backup plan if we went in court, which is a lot of things that have been said by that other side.

So look, the reality and what we’re kind of struggling with, I think collectively, is the court is likely to try to create a line. But that line is going to be a difficult line to define precisely.

So, when you talk about an official act, is it this particular minute action or comment or conversation? Or is it within the broader category of defending the country or safeguarding elections? And we’re not going to really know where they come on that until they do. But that’s going to — that’s going to be the battleground, going forward, for litigating whether something falls within or without immunity.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS: Yes. And both John Sauer, and Will a moment go, both exceptionally good attorneys. All, I think, all but conceded that the next step ought to be number one, either sending it back for more findings, or just let it go to trial, and have a jury sort out this question of what’s an official act and what isn’t.

But it was a huge concession for which neither of them, I think, had a very compelling answer, to be perfectly candid.

I think it’s not just mere hypotheticals. We are talking about specific conduct that a president could engage in.

Let’s make up another one right here. If a president kidnapped, or — kidnapped and harmed Supreme Court justices, for the purpose of appointing their successors, clearly an official act of the presidency, also clearly a crime. And you cannot keep a straight face, and make an argument that that’s not a prosecutable act.

Watch above via CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins.

New: The Mediaite One-Sheet "Newsletter of Newsletters"
Your daily summary and analysis of what the many, many media newsletters are saying and reporting. Subscribe now!