Justice Alito questions whether presidents will have to fear 'bitter political opponent' throwing them in jail

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday asked Justice Department attorneys whether presidents would have to fear prosecution by a "bitter political opponent" if justices reject former President Trump's immunity claims.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue of presidential immunity, which could set a precedent for whether former presidents have "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution.

SCOTUS SEES ‘DANGEROUS PRECEDENT’ IN TRUMP IMMUNITY CASE IF PRESIDENTS CAN PROSECUTE RIVALS: EXPERTS

Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday, during arguments from Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben — who presented arguments on behalf of Smith — questioned the repercussions of charging a former president.

"Now if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possible nullity after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent," Alito asked.

TRUMP ATTORNEY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLASH ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT WHO 'ORDERED' A 'COUP' COULD BE PROSECUTED

"Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? And we can look around the world and find countries where we have seen this process, where the loser gets thrown in jail," he said.

"I think it's exactly the opposite," Dreeben replied. "There are lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election." Dreeben went on to discuss Trump's attempts to challenge the 2020 election in the courts.

The official question the Supreme Court is considering is: "Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution