Summarizing his position, Sauer at one point declared, “I’ll say in response to all these kinds of hypotheticals, [a president] has to be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted.”

It is, to be sure, a difficult argument to take seriously. The presumptive GOP nominee’s defense counsel apparently expects the judiciary to agree that a former president might be subject to prosecution — for some of the most outrageous felonies imaginable — but only if a majority of the U.S. House and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate act first.

But it’s not just foolish. It’s also the opposite of what the Republican’s lawyers said during Trump’s second impeachment trial. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes was understandably exasperated by this as the oral arguments progressed.

Link to tweet

This might seem a little complicated at first glance, but it’s actually entirely straightforward:

In early 2021, Trump’s lawyers said during his second impeachment trial that there was no need for the Senate to convict the former president, because the matter was better left to the judiciary.

In early 2024, Trump’s lawyers said the former president’s alleged crimes can’t be left to the judiciary, because the Senate didn’t vote to convict.

......In other words, Team Trump effectively argued in 2021, “Congress should leave such matters to the courts.” It’s now arguing, “The matter can’t be left to the courts because Congress needs to act.”

How are the former president and his lawyers resolving the contradiction? By ignoring it and hoping others don’t notice.