Trump claims immunity even extends to acts that 'cross the line'

Former President Donald J. Trump said Friday evening that American presidents deserve full immunity from prosecution even for actions that “cross the line,” arguing for the second time this week that the holder of the nation's highest office is effectively beyond the reach of criminal law.

Mr. Trump's comments on his social media platform Truth Social were the latest signal that he appears to view the presidency as an office unbounded by the normal checks of the criminal justice system. The statements were made as Trump looked to build on his dominant position in the race for the Republican nomination with a decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary next week.

Mr. Trump's comments appeared to go beyond the legal arguments one of his lawyers made in his efforts to use sweeping claims of executive immunity to dismiss a federal suit accusing him of plotting to illegally overturn the 2020 election.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Washington expressed deep skepticism about Mr. Trump's immunity arguments, suggesting it was unlikely to rule in his favor on a central element of his defense in the case. The court of appeal can rule at any time.

Trump's lawyer took the position during the appeals court hearing that presidents could only be prosecuted for things they did while in office, no matter how extreme, if they were first convicted in impeachment proceedings. On the face of it, Mr. Trump's statements this week, which made no reference to impeachment, suggested that he believes there are no circumstances that would allow presidents to be held criminally liable.

In his post on Truth Social, Mr. Trump said presidents “should have complete immunity” to avoid charges being brought against them by “the opposing party.” Immunity protections, he added, should even extend to “events that 'cross the line'.”

The claim echoed similar comments Mr Trump made in another social media post on Thursday. In that post, he also asserted that a president's immunity from prosecution should include even actions that “cross the line,” adding, “Sometimes you have to live with 'great but somewhat imperfect'.”

A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Although Mr. Trump's statements on immunity were made as the legal battle over the issue was being considered, they also seemed to indicate that the former president was taking a position that he could not be prosecuted for anything he did while in office . he will be re-elected in November.

Aides to Mr. Trump have said in the past that he should take a maximalist position on the immunity issue because they believe the Biden administration — and prosecutors in the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith, who oversees the case of election interference. for the Department of Justice – have weaponized the criminal justice system against him.

Mr Trump has also bitterly denounced the lengthy investigation into his campaign's ties to Russia in 2016 as a “witch hunt” undertaken by “deep state” adversaries. Under Justice Department policy, presidents cannot be prosecuted while in office, but that position does not prevent a former president from being charged and tried for actions he took while in the White House.

The position Trump has taken on social media appears to be an even more extreme interpretation of presidential immunity than his lawyers adopted when arguing last week before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

During arguments, one of the justices posed an extraordinary hypothetical to Mr. Trump's lawyer, D. John Sauer, asking whether a president would be immune from prosecution even if he ordered Navy commandos to kill a political rival.

After some whining and whining, Mr. Sauer said such a president would certainly be impeached and convicted. But he also emphasized that courts would not have jurisdiction to oversee a murder trial unless the impeachment conviction takes place first.

James I. Pearce, a lawyer representing Mr. Smith, expressed disgust at Mr. Sauer's argument. A version of immunity that meant presidents so blatantly and violently broke the law was not only wrong, he said, but also a vision of “an extraordinarily frightening future.”