George Conway shreds 'fallacious reasoning' of Trump’s 'immunity' claims

Special counsel Jack Smith was hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to an expedited review of Trump's "presidential immunity" arguments against his election fraud case, but the nine justices denied his request and opted to keep the matter in the lower federal courts — at least for now. And on Tuesday morning, January 9, a panel of three federal appellate court judges weighed in.

Judges Karen Henderson, Florence Y. Pan and Michelle Childs appeared to be quite skeptical when attorney D. John Sauer argued in favor of Trump's "immunity" claim. Previously, Judge Tanya Chutkan had rejected that claim, ruling that presidents in the U.S. do not enjoy a "divine right of kings."

Conservative attorney George Conway is also vehemently critical of Trump's argument that because was still president in late 2020 and early 2021, he is exempt from prosecution in Smith's case and enjoys "presidential immunity."

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

In an article published by The Atlantic on January 10, Conway criticizes Trump's "fallacious reasoning" and explains, "Trump's main argument on this appeal is that presidents can't be prosecuted for their official acts…. Trump's immunity argument is at least an argument: Not a good one, not a winner, but not completely and totally ridiculous. I can't say it wasn't worth the old college try. The same cannot be said about the other major contention Trump has urged on this appeal: the argument that Sauer took to conflating with the immunity argument in response to Judge Pan's questioning."

The Never Trump conservative continues, "That second argument relies on what's called the Constitution's impeachment-judgment clause, in Article I, Section 3…. By its express terms, all this language does is make sure everyone understands that double-jeopardy protections don't apply when a federal public official is impeached, convicted, and removed from office. The clause makes clear that the official may still go to jail — that he remains 'subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment' even after he is removed from his job. But Trump's lawyers contend that this text says something it absolutely does not say: that, if a public official, namely the president, is not impeached and removed by Congress, then he cannot be prosecuted under criminal law."

READ MORE: 'Sobering' analysis shows how Trump's 'immunity' argument could make another term even more dangerous

Read George Conway's full article for The Atlantic at this link (subscription required).