Donald Trump, through his previous attorneys, has argued in the past against presidential immunity after leaving office, and experts were quick to point that out.
Trump was scorched online on Tuesday after arguing before an appeals court that he could order the assassination of a political opponent without criminal liability. But after the hearing, a reporter pointed out that the argument contradicts those made by Trump even when he was still in office.
NBC News Correspondent Vaughn Hillyard pointed out that Bruce Castor, an attorney who represented former president Trump in his second impeachment trial, previously made arguments opposite those being made by Trump's team now.
ALSO READ: Donald Trump’s un-American ploy for criminal immunity
"From the congressional record (and as tweeted by Sen. Cornyn on Feb. 12, 2021): Trump's Counsel (Castor) at Senate impeachment trial arguing that the president 'is subject to criminal sanction after his Presidency for any illegal acts he commits,'" Hillyard wrote on Tuesday.
Christian Vanderbrouk, a conservative commentator who previously worked in the George W. Bush White House, also highlighted the revelation.
"Trump's lawyers argued today that because he was not convicted by the Senate he is immune from prosecution," he wrote. "Yet Trump's lawyers argued at his Senate trial in 2021 that acquittal would still mean 'he is subject to criminal sanction after his Presidency...' It's a shell game."
Legal expert Dr. Allison Gill said Trump has a "history of presenting conflicting arguments to suit him in the moment."
"He argued he WAS an officer of the US in E Jean to get Bill Barr to have the DoJ represent him, but argued he's NOT an officer of the US in the 14th amendment case," Gill wrote on Tuesday.
Law professor Jeff Tulis said one of the reasons the Senate "fell short of a two thirds majority is that Trump argued he could not be impeached out of office but he could be convicted in the regular criminal process."
