The issue: Whether a former president is immune from federal prosecution after leaving office for acts committed while in office. Immunity from civil suits for decisions while serving in an official capacity as President of the United States has long been recognized in American jurisprudence; additionally, it has been the practice of the Department of Justice that a sitting president cannot be criminally charged. Mr. Trump has consistently argued that all of his actions through his last day in office were official acts; Smith has asserted that in the weeks after the election and through January 6th, Mr. Trump was acting as an office "seeker" and not an "office" holder and thus is not afforded the usual protection. Some constitutional scholars have also raised First Amendment alarm bells on the dangers of what they believe appears to be the government attempting to criminalize the speech of the former president.
Judge vents frustration at Trump lawyer for 'paradoxical' view of 'presidential immunity' Federal appeals Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson grilled attorney John Sauer as he argued that former President Donald Trump was entitled to absolute immunity from indictment for election subversion. During Tuesday oral arguments before the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Henderson became frustrated with Sauer. Henderson wanted to know how Trump could be allowed to commit crimes if he was the chief law enforcement officer. She called that view "paradoxical." "Well, I think you're missing what I'm asking, which is, I think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws," the judge said. "Now we're at the motion to dismiss stage. The government has charged the specific criminal laws. We have to assume they're true." Sauer made an argument that Henderson had already dismissed. "I thought you agreed with me that we've gotten beyond Marbury in the sense that official acts has been subdivided into discretionary and duty-bound or ministerial," Henderson said. "And in the ministerial or duty-bound, at least with respect to even legislators and judges, they have been held criminally liable." "And that's in the face, at least with respect to the legislators, of an explicit constitutional privilege," she added.
Just keep in mind that Trump and his lawyers think that it is perfectly legal for him to have his political opponents assassinated. Trump Lawyer Argues Presidents CAN Order Seal Team 6 To Assassinate Rivals In Stunning Appeals Courtroom Exchange https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump...assinate-rivals-in-stunning-appeals-exchange/
Its a valid point the Judge makes But it seemed they are more concerned about setting a new precedent based on subjective conclusion.....I think it will be a 2-1 against. Then it will be appealed to the full appeal court
It has happened before Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki October 14, 2011 ..was a 16-year-old United States citizen who was killed by a drone strike on October 14, 2011, under a policy approved by U.S. President Barack Obama.
Very different situation. This is not assassinating your domestic political rivals as Trump lawyers are pushing.