1. Got up early this week to listen to DC appeals court oral argument. I posted earlier I expected a hypothetical about Trump killing someone important. So if I knew it was coming certainly John Sauer expected it. I was and remain baffled at his admission that Trump wants
2. the court to okay murdering a political rival. In an oral argument a lawyer has to be ready to establish the outer limits of the ruling. Sauer came up with the power of a dictator. Why? In some cases you might try to go to a more extreme position than the court was likely to
3. adopt in hopes that they might split the baby and fall somewhere shore of it but still be acceptable to your client, but Sauer went full Kim Jon Un. Why? The only thing I can think of to come out with a position so extreme that it's almost certain that the court will
4. reject it, is because Trump did something as bad as killing a political rival. And when I run my brain to ponder what that could be, I conclude that my best guess is he sold the Crossfire Hurricane binder and/or nuclear secrets to Putin and knows he's going to be found out.
5. Why is that like killing a rival? Because they both likely carry the death penalty. See 18 U.S. Code § 351 (death for killing major presidential candidate) and 18 U.S. Code § 794 (death if selling secrets to a foreign power resulting in death of US agents or nuclear secrets).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
