The Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral arguments on Trump’s presidential immunity claim in Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC after a federal appeals court ruled Trump was not immune from prosecution.
Trump’s lawyers previously argued that Trump is immune from federal prosecution for alleged ‘crimes’ committed while he served as US President.
At issue before the Supreme Court is whether a US President is immune from criminal prosecution for official (not personal) acts.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked DOJ prosecutor Michael Dreeben (former Mueller goon) why Barack Obama was never charged for drone strikes against civilians.
“How about President Obama’s drone strikes?” Kavanaugh asked Michael Dreeben.
Dreeben defended Obama’s drone strikes that killed weddinggoers and innocent civilians.
“So the office of legal counsel looked at this very carefully and determined number one that the federal murder statute does apply to the Executive Branch, but the president wasn’t personally carrying out the strike, but the aiding and abetting laws are broad and determined that a public authority exception is built into statutes and that applied particularly to the murder statute that talks about unlawful killing did not apply to the drone strike,” Dreeben said.
Dreeben could have saved a lot of time and just said that Barack Obama has Democrat privilege.
AUDIO:
Justice Kavanaugh asks DOJ Lawyer if Barack Obama should be prosecuted over his use of drone strikes against civilians pic.twitter.com/7yBMmQMMZM
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 25, 2024
John Sauer, a Missouri-based attorney for Trump, gave an opening statement on Thursday and argued that Jack Smith’s indictment uses vague statutes to criminalize “core authority” of the presidency.
Sauer argued that immunity protects past presidents such as George W. Bush and Barack Obama from being prosecuted for crimes they committed while in federal office.
He also brought up Obama’s drone strikes against civilians.
AUDIO:
