Trump lawyer turned 'losing argument' into 'preposterous' claims: expert

Donald Trump's attorneys argued his immunity claim before an appeals court panel — and a CNN legal analyst predicted certain defeat.

The former president's attorney Dean John Sauer claimed in court Tuesday that former chief executives could be criminally prosecuted only if they had been impeached and convicted by Congress, but CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said the three-judge panel appeared deeply skeptical of that argument.

"The problem with the argument that Trump's lawyer just staked out, that there has to be an impeachment and conviction before there can be a prosecution, is it leads to absurd results," Honig said. "Impeachment is different, because impeachment could be political and based on a number of factors, and this is a different ballgame altogether than a decision to prosecute and eventually convict somebody."

Honig wondered why Sauer didn't stick to the argument Trump's legal team made in its brief, which cited a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that found presidents should be immune from civil lawsuits where the underlying conduct involved actions taken within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities.

ALSO READ: ‘Official’ Trump calendar omits a critical detail

"The thing that I keep coming back to," Honig said, "is they had an easier way, and Trump's team had a better way, and they just said that what he is charged with is the scope of the outer perimeter of his job as president, and if they stuck to that, I still think they would have had a losing argument, but not a preposterous argument and stronger case to make."

Watch the video below or at this link.

CNN 01 09 2024 10 51 46youtu.be