Donald Trump's lawyers attempted to persuade an appeals court panel that a former president could commit almost any action and evade prosecution, but legal experts weren't impressed by their arguments.
Trump attorney Dean John Sauer argued that special counsel Jack Smith had based his prosecution on "official acts" the former president undertook while in office, but legal experts said hypothetical scenarios sketched by justice Florence Pan about a chief executive ordering the assassination of a political rival showed deep skepticism from the three-judge panel on those immunity claims.
"Judge Pan is absolutely destroying the absolute immunity argument by using Trump's own argument," said legal analyst Chris Geidner. "And then Judge [J. Michelle] Childs, and then Judge [Karen] Henderson. Unless something unusual happens, this is over."
"Trump's immunity argument gets destroyed when a federal appeals court judge asks, 'Could a president order S.E.A.L. Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act and order to Seal Team 6?'" said political analyst Sarah Reese Jones.
"I want MAGA legal pundits to think through what they are defending here with Trump's immunity fight: if Trump wins this argument, why would Biden even bother letting Trump make it to election day?" said national security attorney Bradley Moss. "He could have him murdered, along with GOP congressional allies, and be immune."
Sauer held close to the argument that presidents could be prosecuted only after an impeachment and conviction, about which the judges also appeared skeptical.
"Trump lawyer trying to hew to the line that can never prosecute a President unless first there is an impeachment and conviction," wrote legal analyst Harry Litman. "An untenable argument and he’s getting a very hard time from panel. Court now pointing out impeachment only covers certain crimes."
ALSO READ: How Trump's campaign visits cost local police departments
"So far, the star of the Court of Appeals this morning is Judge Florence Pan, who is having a great deal of fun pointing out that the former president*'s lawyers already have demolished their case for absolute immunity," wrote Esquire columnist Charles Pierce.
"Interesting that for purpose of presidential immunity, Trump argues that running as a candidate and holding office are one and the same," said legal analyst Asha Rangappa. "But when it comes to application Sec. 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Trump wants to split hairs on 'running' and 'holding' office. No principle."
"So shocking to hear Trump counsel say a president is free to sell pardons and kill political opponents, unless and until successfully impeached (which may never happen for a host of reasons)," said former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann.
"Nixon had no impeachment and conviction, yet was given a Presidential pardon covering those crimes," said political analyst Goldie Taylor. "That alone means a former president can be prosecuted with or without an impeachment process. There is no immunity."
"Listening to the appellate court hearing on Trump's immunity claim," wrote longtime newspaper editor Mark Jacobs. "Good lord, his lawyer is a dipshit."
