Unveiling the Truth: Decoding George Washington's Actual Words on Immunity

If you want to receive more stories like this one, you can subscribe to CNN’s What Matters newsletter for free.

In their quest to find evidence supporting "absolute immunity" for former President Donald Trump, his legal team has looked to George Washington, one of the Founding Fathers.

In a brief filed before Thursday’s oral arguments at the US Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers referenced Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States.” They pointed out that Washington’s warning against factions, or political parties, should protect Trump from prosecution for election interference. Attorney John Sauer reiterated this during the oral arguments.

George Washington cautioned against the continuous control of one political group over another, fueled by a desire for revenge that often leads to terrible acts of violence in various societies and eras.

The issue, according to John Avlon, a former CNN anchor who extensively studied Washington's farewell address, is that Trump's legal team failed to heed Washington's advice.

Washington’s thought does not end where Trump’s lawyers put the period.

What did Washington actually say?

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, has led to terrible atrocities throughout history. This kind of control eventually paves the way for a more formal and lasting dictatorship. The chaos and suffering that follow gradually push people to seek safety and peace in the complete authority of a single person. Eventually, a leader from a dominant group, who is either more skilled or luckier than the rest, seizes this opportunity to rise to power at the expense of public freedom.

Washington expressed concern about the issue of alternating between political parties, referring to it as "a frightful despotism." However, he warned that this could ultimately result in an even more severe form of tyranny: "permanent despotism" where one person is elevated to power at the expense of public freedom.

Avlon does not interpret the paragraph as a cryptic justification for presidential immunity, as argued by Trump's lawyers. Instead, he sees it as a clear caution against prioritizing party loyalty over the well-being of the country, such as attempting to overturn an election to retain power.

According to Avlon, Washington's words were a direct admonition against individuals similar to Donald Trump.

Predicting ‘insurrection’

In the next paragraph of his speech, Washington finds it hard to believe that such a extreme situation could occur. He mentions a statement that remains relevant from 1796 to January 6, 2021:

The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party make it important for a wise people to discourage and restrain it. Without reaching an extreme, it is clear that the divisive nature of party politics can be harmful.

Partisan politics can distract public discussions and weaken government operations. It creates unnecessary tensions and conflicts within the community, leading to unfounded suspicions and unnecessary panic. In some cases, it can even spark riots and uprisings.

Avlon, a Democrat running for Congress in New York, believes that the misquote is disrespectful to Washington's intentions, a deliberate misinterpretation of the text, and an effort to deceive the American people.

This viewpoint aligns with the question posed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to Sauer. She asked whether immunity for a president would not prevent partisanship, but instead encourage presidents to act unlawfully.

In his farewell address, the first president advised his fellow citizens that “Religion and morality” were the “great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens."

In his goodbye speech, the initial president suggested to his fellow citizens that "Religion and morality" are the "key components of human happiness, the strongest foundations of the responsibilities of individuals and citizens."

Library of Congress

Washington’s view of following laws

The farewell address is significant because Washington starts by stating he will be relinquishing power, unlike Trump who clings to it. Washington views himself as a citizen, not above the country. He concludes the address by expressing his anticipation of enjoying the benefits of good laws in a free government alongside his fellow citizens.

These are not the words of someone who believes they are immune to consequences.

Another Washington historian, Alexis Coe, recently wrote a biography where she described the Trump lawyers’ interpretation of Washington’s farewell address as "bonkers." She believes that instead of seeking exemption from laws, Washington would have found ways to work within them.

According to Coe, Washington believed that a president should step down when the people, specifically the land-owning White men, believed it was time for a change. He did not think that he could avoid being held accountable for his actions while in office.

Coe shared how Washington avoided a Pennsylvania law that would have freed his enslaved workers after six months by moving them out of the state. He openly talked about this tactic in letters but kept it hidden from the workers.

Coe mentioned that modern politicians can learn a valuable lesson from Washington's farewell. Parties need to be accountable for their actions, and the fact that they may not be held accountable can be dangerous.

Why Trump is unique among presidents

Trump’s lawyers argue the fact that no other president in US history has been prosecuted is evidence that presidents should not be prosecuted.

According to presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Trump is different from past US presidents because he has not accepted the loss of his presidency, unlike others who have. Goodwin mentioned this on CNN after the Supreme Court oral arguments.

The big question now is whether Trump will receive immunity for his legal issues.

Surprise was felt among Supreme Court observers regarding the level of respect shown by conservative justices towards Sauer's arguments. The general belief, often proven incorrect, is that the conservative majority on the court is likely to establish a new immunity standard for presidential actions or remand the case for further examination by lower courts.

Conservatives like Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch were not focused on discussing Trump's alleged election interference. Instead, they were more interested in considering the implications of their decision in this case for the future. "We're writing a rule for the ages," Gorsuch confidently stated during the discussion.

Delaying Trump's prosecution is a victory for him as he buys time until the November election.

Creating an immunity rule would be a new concept for the justices. Despite considering themselves as constitutional textualists, immunity is not found in the Constitution or Washington's farewell address.

Editor's P/S:

The article delves into the legal arguments presented by Donald Trump's legal team, who sought to establish "absolute immunity" for the former president based on George Washington's "Farewell Address to the People of the United States." However, scholars and historians argue that Trump's team misrepresented Washington's intent and that his words actually caution against prioritizing party loyalty and attempting to overturn elections.

The article highlights the unique circumstances surrounding Trump's prosecution, as no previous president has faced similar charges. Conservative justices on the Supreme Court have shown surprising respect for Trump's arguments, but it remains uncertain whether they will ultimately grant him immunity. Creating an immunity rule would be a novel concept in the court's history and could have significant implications for future presidential actions. The potential delay in Trump's prosecution until after the November election could provide him with a tactical advantage.