Former Attorney General Bill Barr dismissed what he called “horror stories” raised by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent on the high court’s ruling on former President Trump’s immunity claim.
“I think the worst example, the one that doesn’t make any sense, is the idea that he could use SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent. The president has the authority to defend the country against foreign enemies, armed conflicts and so on,” Barr said Monday on Fox News.
“He has the authority to direct the justice system against criminals at home. He does not have the authority to murder people,” he added. “So whether he uses the SEAL team or a private assassin, it doesn’t matter; that doesn’t mean this is an execution of his authority. So all these horror stories are really false.”
The example of SEAL Team 6 was addressed in Sotomayor’s dissent to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling on Monday. Sotomayor said the Supreme Court’s decision to grant Trump immunity from official acts “completely isolates[s] presidents of criminal responsibility” in a scathing dissent.
“When he uses his official powers in any way, the majority reasoned, he will now be exempt from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor wrote. “Order Navy Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” she continued. “Organizes a military coup to maintain power? Immune. Accepts bribes in exchange for forgiveness? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
The Supreme Court handed down the 6-3 decision on Monday, ruling along ideological lines that presidents have absolute immunity for actions that fall within the essential responsibilities of their office and are “at least presumptively immune” for all other official acts. .
“I think this was a very sensible decision that most lawyers familiar with this area expected… which came to the court in a very abstract stance, which was the government’s very broad assertion that there was no immunity at all.” Barr commented.
When asked about concerns that the decision could empower Trump to exercise executive power in “more extreme ways,” Barr noted that the Supreme Court’s role is to write a “timeless opinion” that does not necessarily discuss the specific circumstances at hand.
“I would say what the Chief Justice said in the opinion, which is that the Supreme Court has to write an opinion, a timeless opinion, an opinion that covers all situations in the future and that is good for the country in the long term,” Barr said. “And they cannot write opinions tailored to the specific demands of the moment.”
The high court ruling handed Trump a victory as he faced a federal criminal election subversion case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
The ruling will likely delay the trial, first sending the case back to a lower court to determine whether his actions on January 6, 2021 deserve 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 is going to do what it really should have done in the beginning, what the government really should have done, which is do the analysis. Then the facts go to the Supreme Court, so as a practical matter there will be no hearing on this case before the election,” Barr said.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
