Washington D.C. — Today, during a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) questioned D. John Sauer, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney and nominee for solicitor general, on his position on the legality of a president assassinating a political opponent and whether he would recuse himself from overseeing any investigations into Trump’s cases he worked on.
Watch the full clip HERE.
Key Excerpts:
On Sauer’s support of the legality of Trump assassinating a political opponent:
Schiff: […]You took the position as Donald Trump’s lawyer that he could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent and not be prosecuted for it, unless he was impeached first. Should the president order the use of violence against a political appointment, will that continue to be your position as the lawyer for the United States? Will you represent to the court that any prosecution should be dismissed if the president is not first impeached?
Sauer: Senator, I believe the exchange that you’re referring to, which occurred during oral argument in the D.C. circuit in that presidential immunity decision, I was asked a question about that. And what I responded was that the president may be prosecuted for an action like that, but under the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause, he must be first impeached and convicted by the Senate.
Schiff: And as the judge in that argument made clear, that means your position is he cannot be prosecuted unless he’s impeached first. So he can order the use of his office to use violence against a political opponent, and you would defend his ability to do that in any criminal prosecution, unless he’s impeached. Is that your testimony?
[…]
Sauer: The hypothetical you’ve offered, respectfully, is so outlandish. I don’t know if I’m in position to address it.
Schiff: You addressed it for the court, but you won’t address it for the country in this hearing?
Sauer: I think I’ve just said exactly the same response that I gave the court.
Schiff: Okay, then exactly the same response is that you would evidently defend him against prosecution for that.
On Sauer’s willingness to dismiss cases at the president’s request:
Schiff: […] The department moved to dismiss a corruption case against the mayor of New York. The acting Southern District of New York U.S. attorney refused to undertake an action that she believed was deeply unethical. So then it fell on her number two, Hagan Scotten, to do the dirty deed of dismissing this case. This is what he said, “Any Assistant U.S. attorney would know our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the president is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion, but it was never going to be me.” My question to you, Mr. Sauer, would that be you? If it fell to you to dismiss that case. Would you be the coward or fool willing to dismiss that case on behalf of the president?
Sauer: I certainly can’t speak to any official action that I might or might not take in a hypothetical scenario. I will say that there was a distressing lack of letters like this during the weaponization of justice.
Schiff: Well, there is a disturbing presence of letters like this, and your answer tells me that it would be you. My colleagues have praised your legal skills. I have no doubt about your knowledge of the law. But to me, you can’t be a good lawyer if you use the law to subvert the law, if you use our system to undermine our system. And I’m deeply afraid that’s what you’ve done, and that’s what you will do in this position.
On Sauer recusing himself from cases that he represented:
Schiff: […] Mr. Sauer, you’ve served as one of the president’s defense lawyers. Should cases arise in the Justice Department involving the same cases in which you represented him, will you recuse yourself?
Sauer: Senator, thank you for the question, as reflected in the ethics agreement that I have signed and in the regulations to the Department of Justice. As to any matter that were to come before me that might require recusal obligation, I would consult with the Department of Justice ethics officials and follow my recusal obligations.
Schiff: So you’ll consult with the career ethics lawyers at the department.
Sauer: Yes, that’s correct.
Schiff: You are aware, of course, that the career ethics officials at the department have been fired, demoted, transferred, they no longer exist. The two people in that office are one of your fellow criminal defense lawyers of Donald Trump and a political appointee who graduated from law school just a few years ago. They don’t exist. So who are you going to consult? Are you going to go to one of his other criminal defense lawyers to find out if you should recuse yourself?
Sauer: Senator, I’m not aware of any personnel actions that you’ve described, so I can’t speak directly to those. I’ve just recently been through a process where I was consulting closely with a career DOJ attorney —
Schiff: Mr. Sauer, those actions have taken place. And the two appointees are political appointees. The people who will make the recusal recommendations to you are political appointees. One was Mr. Bove’s former chief of staff, the other was a fellow criminal defense lawyer for Donald Trump. If that’s who you’re going to for recusal advice, no one can have confidence that that judgment will be made properly.
###