Former Attorney General William Barr dismissed the “horror story” presented by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision on former President Trump’s immunity claim.
“The example, in my opinion, that’s the most egregious and makes absolutely no sense is the notion that a president can use SEALs Team 6 to kill a political opponent. The president has the authority to defend the country against foreign enemies, armed conflicts and so on,” Attorney General Barr said on Fox News on Monday.
“He has the authority to direct the justice system against domestic criminals, but he does not have the authority to assassinate people,” he added. “So it doesn’t matter if he uses SEAL teams or private hitmen, that’s not an exercise of his authority. So all of these horror stories are lies.”
The example of SEAL Team 6 was raised in Sotomayor’s dissent on Monday against the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Sotomayor said the Supreme Court’s decision to grant Trump immunity for official conduct was “completely unjust.”[s] “We will absolve the president from criminal liability.”
“The majority’s reasoning is that when a president exercises the power of his office in any way, he is immune from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “Ordered Navy SEAL Unit 6 to assassinate a political opponent? Immunity.” “Planned a military coup to stay in power? Immunity. Accepted bribes in exchange for a pardon? Immunity. Immunity, immunity, immunity.”
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday, basing its decision on the ideologically-driven notion that the president has absolute immunity for acts that fall within the core responsibilities of his office, but “at least a presumptive immunity” for all other official business.
“This is a very wise decision and one that I think most lawyers familiar with this area would have predicted, which is that the government went to court in a very abstract way, making a very broad argument that there was no immunity at all,” Barr said.
Asked about concerns that the ruling could allow Trump to exercise executive power in “more extreme ways,” Barr noted that the Supreme Court’s job is to write “timeless opinions” that don’t necessarily discuss the specific situations at hand.
“I would say what the Chief Justice said in his decision, which is that the Supreme Court must write decisions that are timeless, decisions that encompass all future circumstances and that are good for the country in the long run,” Barr said. “And we cannot write decisions that are tailored to the particular exigencies of the moment.”
The Supreme Court’s decision handed President Trump a victory in his criminal trial brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith for subverting the federal election.
The decision will likely delay the trial, first sending the case back to a lower court to determine whether Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, merit protection from criminal prosecution for decisions he made while in the White House.
“And I think the practical effect of this is that the district court will be doing the analysis that the government should have done all along, which means the facts will go to the Supreme Court, so as a practical matter, this case is not going to be tried before the election,” Barr said.
