Washington, D.C. – During a Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) pressed Jennifer Mascott, President Trump’s nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for refusing to answer whether she believes the president would be immune from prosecution for using the military to assassinate a political opponent.
During a tense back-and-forth, Schiff pressed Mascott for her previous description of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision in Trump v. United States as “modest.” He also highlighted how appointing another Trump nominee to the courts would allow the president’s blatant overreach of power to continue.
Watch the full clip HERE. Download the clip HERE.
Key Excerpt:
Schiff: […] I asked you a specific question. Would the president be immune from prosecution if he ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent? Yes or no.
Mascott: Senator, under the Supreme Court precedent on that question, the Supreme Court has specifically not answered it.
Schiff: Is that a difficult question? Is that an open question, in your view?
Mascott: Well Senator, under the contours of Trump v. United States, which deals with criminal immunity, I’m not sure that it fully answers all of the political mechanisms that would be in place to address and keep such a horrific situation from ever occurring.
Schiff: So, you’re unclear as to whether a president could be prosecuted for that. Is that what you’re saying, you don’t know the answer?
Mascott: Well, I think what I’m saying is that within the particular contours of criminal immunity discussed in that opinion, it addresses actually what is an official act. And so I think the first threshold question would be whether one could ever conceive of such a thing as an official act.
[…]
Schiff: […] I’m asking you a very simple question. Yes or no, is the president immune if he uses SEAL Team Six to kill a political opponent? Yes or no.
Mascott: Senator, with respect —
Schiff: With respect, you’re not willing to answer the question.
[…]
Schiff: If the president were to use the military in direct violation of court order, deliberately, knowingly, blatantly use the military in violation of court order, is he immune from any liability?
Mascott: Senator, as I said when I testified last September about the decision, the Clinton administration had an opinion on —
Schiff: I’m not asking about the Clinton administration.
Mascott: It’s directly relevant, that a president — the position of the Clinton administration is the president, while serving —
Schiff: I’m not asking the position of the Clinton administration. I’m asking your position, your view of the immunity decision, which you’ve described as modest. I’m trying to determine just how modest you think it is. You’re unwilling to say a president can’t kill an opponent and be liable. You’re unwilling to say the president can’t sell foreign policy of the United States for crypto currency. You’re unwilling to say he can’t do that and still be immune. […]
###