Misreading Washington’s ‘Farewell Address’: Trump Lawyers Use Historical Document to Argue for Absolute Immunity

The lawyers for former President Donald Trump have turned to George Washington’s “Farewell Address” as evidence that he would support “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for his client. However, the historical significance of this document has been distorted by these claims, according to CNN contributor and historian John Avlon, author of a book about the speech. The full paragraph cited in Trump’s lawyers’ brief shows Washington warning against factions (political parties) perpetrating “horrid enormities,” but his intention is misread if taken as evidence for immunity. Rather than being a proponent of impunity for high-ranking officials, Avlon says that Washington would have found ways around laws and held himself accountable when the people believed he should be replaced. The historian Alexis Coe also dismissed Trump’s lawyers’ interpretation as “bonkers,” explaining that while Washington discussed avoiding Pennsylvania law to prevent his enslaved servants from gaining freedom after six months, this was done openly in letters but hidden from them. Instead of seeking exemption from laws, modern politicians should hold themselves accountable and accept the consequences when they fail to do so, Coe said. The presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin pointed out that Trump’s legal issues differed significantly from those faced by any previous US president since he failed to accept defeat in an election; instead, he interfered with its results repeatedly for months after it took place. While some observers were surprised at the deference shown by conservative justices on the Supreme Court during oral arguments about Trump’s case, Goodwin noted that this could lead them to create a new immunity test or send the matter back down before setting rules explicitly limiting any precedents made through it might carry outgoing cases. However, as neither of these options is mentioned in the Constitution and was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, they would be creating something entirely novel if this were done.