Presidential Immunity: Nikki Haley Slams Former Trump Attorney’s ‘Ridiculous’ Argument on Assassination of Political Rivals

Washington, D.C. – GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley criticized the notion that presidential immunity would protect assassinations of political rivals, calling it “ridiculous.” Speaking at the CNN GOP presidential debate, Haley emphasized the need for common sense when determining the boundaries of presidential immunity.

Haley’s remarks were in response to arguments made by former President Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, before a panel of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals judges. Sauer claimed that the president would be shielded from prosecution if they ordered the assassination of a political rival, as long as the president had not been impeached and removed by the Senate.

Haley firmly disagreed with this interpretation, stating, “You can’t go and kill a political rival and then claim immunity from a president.” She highlighted the importance of using common sense in evaluating the scope of presidential immunity.

Trump’s legal team has consistently argued for broad presidential immunity, asserting that all actions taken by the president while in office should be protected. They made this argument in relation to special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, where they sought to shield the former president from prosecution.

In her critique, Haley also addressed the need for a leader who would bring “sanity” back to the country, emphasizing that the nation must move away from the chaos that has accompanied Trump’s presidency. Haley has previously expressed concerns about the chaos that has followed Trump and has advocated for a fresh start.

Ultimately, Haley’s remarks reflect a rejection of the notion that presidential immunity should shield presidents from criminal acts. She argues that common sense should prevail in determining the boundaries of immunity and that assassinations of political rivals should never be considered protected under presidential immunity. The debate surrounding the limits of presidential immunity continues to be a significant point of contention in American politics.