After Trump Claims That Presidential Immunity Should Apply To Acts That ‘Cross The Line,’ His Critics Weigh In

Last week, former President Donald Trump declared that U.S. presidents should be immune to prosecution, even if they committed acts that “cross the line.”

This was the second time in a week that Trump claimed that the president of the United States should be beyond the reach of criminal law.

“A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in all caps. “ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENDED, WOULD BE MET WITH ALMOST CERTAIN INDICTMENT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT TERM END. EVEN EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE’ MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD. THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY.”

“EXAMPLE: YOU CAN’T STOP POLICE FROM DOING THE JOB OF STRONG & EFFECTIVE CRIME PREVENTION BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GUARD AGAINST THE OCCASIONAL ‘ROGUE COP’ OR ‘BAD APPLE,'” he went on to write. “SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH “GREAT BUT SLIGHTLY IMPERFECT.” ALL PRESIDENTS MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, OR THE AUTHORITY & DECISIVENESS OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL BE STRIPPED & GONE FOREVER. HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL BE AN EASY DECISION. GOD BLESS THE SUPREME COURT!”

Trump’s statements seemed to go further than the legal arguments that one of his lawyers, D. John Sauer, made in order to use broad claims of executive immunity to avoid a federal indictment he is facing accusing him of scheming to illegally overturn the 2020 election.

Sauer claimed that presidential immunity would allow a U.S. president to assassinate a political rival without facing criminal prosecution.

Assistant Special Counsel James Pearce told the panels of judges that Trump’s argument was “frightening.” 

During the appellate court hearing, Sauer supported the idea that presidents could be prosecuted for the things they did in office, no matter how serious, only if they were to first be convicted in an impeachment proceeding.

The three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington was very skeptical about the former president’s immunity arguments.

Trump’s statements on Truth Social seem to have made no reference to impeachment and suggest that he believes there are no circumstances that would allow presidents to be held accountable under criminal law.

Trump’s aides have stated in the past that his lawyers must take immediate action on the issue of immunity since they believe that the Biden administration — and the prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, which is supervising the election interference case for the Justice Department — has weaponized the criminal justice system against him.

Under the policy of the Justice Department, presidents cannot face prosecution while in office, though a former president can be charged and tried for actions they have taken during their time in the White House after they leave office.

During a Manchester, New Hampshire, rally, Trump declared that presidents should be entitled to complete immunity and that they would be powerless without it. He suggested that he hoped that the Supreme Court would be “brave enough” to grant him immunity.

In recent weeks, Trump has also warned that violence would break out if any of the criminal charges made against him resulted in his conviction.

On January 9, Trump attended an appeals court hearing for his federal election subversion case. During this hearing, his lawyers argued that he enjoys complete immunity for anything he did during his time in office.

After the hearing, Trump claimed that he “did nothing wrong.”

A reporter pointed out that he used the word “bedlam” and asked him if he would tell his supporters that there should be no more violence. The former president walked away without answering the question.