Trump’s Past Defense Arguments Used Against Him in Immunity Claim Case

via Fox News
OPINION | This article contains the author's opinion.

In a recent appeals court hearing, Donald Trump’s lawyer argued that Trump should be immune from criminal prosecution unless he was impeached and convicted first.

However, two judges noted that Trump’s impeachment lawyers had argued the opposite in 2021, stating that a former president should face the courts, not impeachment proceedings.

The hearing has significant implications for Trump, who is facing multiple criminal cases as he runs for the presidency again. (Trending: Fox News Star Accused Of Major Scandal)

In 2021, Sen. McConnell said, “We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”

Judge Karen Henderson asked in this week’s hearing, “What about the two concessions made, in the first impeachment proceeding and then in Trump v. Vance, that impeachment should be stayed and wait until he’s out of office when he would be subject to criminal liability?”

Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauere, replied in his filing, “We have a judicial process in this country, period.”

“It did not say that we could never raise an immunity defense,” he added.

Judge Florence Pan said, “no former officeholder is immune from investigation and prosecution.”

“Investigation is what there’s no immunity to,” Sauer replied.

“And prosecution,” added Judge Pan.

Judge Pan said Trump “was president at the time, and his position was that no former officeholder is immune, and in fact, the argument was there’s no need to vote for impeachment because we have this backstop, which is criminal prosecution, and it seems that many senators relied on that when voting to acquit.”

Most Popular:

First Moon Mission In 50 Years Blasts Off

Joe Biden Sets New Presidential Record

Fox News Star Accused Of Major Scandal