Donald Trump’s Bid For Absolute Immunity Likely To Fail After Court Arguments

A three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared unanimous in rejecting former President Donald Trump’s argument that presidents have “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for any acts taken in office unless they are impeached and convicted, following arguments on Tuesday.

The appeals court sat in judgment over Trump’s appeal to dismiss the four felony charges brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith for his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The court largely addressed Trump’s two main arguments: presidents have “absolute immunity” from all criminal prosecution for official acts taken in office, and presidents may only ever be prosecuted if first impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate. No president has ever been impeached and convicted.

The appeals panel consisted of two Biden appointees, Judges Florence Pan and Michelle Fields, and one George H.W. Bush appointee, Judge Karen Henderson. All three of the judges appeared skeptical of the arguments made by Trump’s defense lawyer, D. John Sauer.

But the true absurdity of Trump’s argument quickly became clear as Pan forced Sauer to take the former president’s argument to its logical conclusion.

“Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival [and is] not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?” Pan asked Sauer.

Sauer offered a “qualified yes ― if he is impeached and convicted first.”

But, as Pan pointed out, if the president were not convicted in the Senate, then Sauer’s answer is no. She further stated that this logic also applied to a president selling pardons or military secrets, as these could be argued to be official acts.

This “extraordinarily frightening