During Thursday's Supreme Court hearing, Trump lawyer John Sauer was made to look foolish trying to defend his claim that the president would get immunity even if he assassinates his political rival.
Justice Sotomayor was not amused.
Sotomayor: Your answer below, I'm going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it – if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?
Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.
Sotomayor: It could. And why? Because he's doing it for personal reasons. He's not doing it like President Obama is alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist. He's doing it for personal gain.
Sotomayor: And isn't that the nature of the allegations here? That he's not doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility. He's doing it for personal gain.
Sauer: I agree with that characterization of the indictment, and that confirms immunity. Because the characterization is that there's a series of official acts that were done for an unlawful or improper purpose.
Sotomayor: No, because immunity says even if you did it for personal gain, we won't hold you responsible. What do you, how could that be?
Exactly, how could that be? That be, it can't. (See what I did there? I made up a phrase like Trump's attorney is making up a new form of immunity that would make any president a King)
