Donald Trump Lawyer Implies a President Could Legally Order the Assassination of a Political Rival at Immunity Hearing

Donald Trump lawyer John Sauer appeared to imply there were circumstances that a POTUS could legally have a political rival killed for personal gain while attending the Supreme Court's Thursday, April 25, hearing on presidential immunity.

The shocking back-and-forth began when Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave Sauer the chance to walk back prior claims he'd made on the topic by asking him directly, "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or order someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity?"

The attorney replied that "it would depend on the hypothetical" and if it could be seen as an "official act."

"He could. And why? Because he’s doing it for personal reasons," Sotomayor pushed. "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."

"Isn’t that the nature of the allegations here, that he’s not doing them, doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility?" she continued. "He’s doing it for personal gain."

Sauer responded, "I agree with that characterization of the indictment. And that confirms immunity."

This comes as Trump continues to insist that it is crucial for presidents to have full immunity from criminal charges in order to carry out the responsibilities of the job.

"If a President does not have Immunity, the Opposing Party, during his/her term in Office, can extort and blackmail the President by saying that, 'if you don’t give us everything we want, we will Indict you for things you did while in Office,' even if everything done was totally Legal and Appropriate," the 77-year-old bizarrely argued via Truth Social on Thursday, April 25.

"That would be the end of the Presidency, and our Country, as we know it, and is just one of the many Traps there would be for a President without Presidential Immunity," he alleged. "If a President doesn’t have IMMUNITY, he/she will be nothing more than a 'Ceremonial' President, rarely having the courage to do what has to be done for our Country."

As OK! previously reported, Trump went so far as to declare the country would be in "everlasting danger" without full immunity for the commander-in-chief.

Never miss a story — sign up for the OK! newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what OK! has to offer. It’s gossip too good to wait for!

However, according to Constitution Annotated, it's been ruled in the past that presidential immunity does not refer to criminal charges.

"For example, in United States v. Nixon, the Court held that President Richard Nixon was amenable to a subpoena to produce evidence for use in a federal criminal case," the government website explained, pointing out that Nixon also tried to claim he had immunity. "The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed, holding that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."