Donald Trump Attorneys Continue To Get Slammed by Legal Experts After Disastrous Immunity Hearing

After ex-President Donald Trump's attorneys raised eyebrows with questionable claims that presidents cannot be prosecuted and have absolute immunity, legal experts continue to pile on them even after one of the judges completely dismantled one of the former POTUS's lawyers with the assassination question.

Judge Florence Y. Pan from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals asked Trump attorney D. John Sauer a hypothetical question if a president were to order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, should he not be prosecuted?

"I asked you a yes-or-no question," she asked the Trump lawyer. "Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?" To this, Sauer answered a "qualified yes," and this answer simply stunned a lot of legal experts.

The Trump attorney told the judge that prosecution would only be permitted if the president were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, which he argued Trump was not as he was saved because the Democrats and the anti-Trump Republicans did not have enough votes to impeach him.

However, as the New York Times reported, Sauer's argument only raised eyebrows from legal scholars who were quick to point out the holes in his argument, particularly regarding a provision that talks about presidents who were impeached being prosecuted criminally after leaving office.

Abner S. Greene, a law professor at Fordham University, told the outlet that "the impeachment arguments are sure losers - both that the president may be criminally prosecuted only if impeached and convicted, and that the president may not be criminally prosecuted if impeached and not convicted."

After the judges eviscerated the arguments of the Trump attorneys, legal experts believe he is likely to lose the immunity case but is still likely to appeal it and take it all the way to the Supreme Court in an effort to delay his January 6 case.

Richard Nixon Pardon Also Weakens Donald Trump Immunity Claim

During the hearing, one of the judges in that 3-judge panel at the DC Circuit Court also pointed out that what happened with Richard Nixon also weakens Donald Trump's immunity claims.

According to MSNBC, Judge Michelle Childs told Trump attorney John Sauer that there is "an assumption that you could be prosecuted" should Nixon not have been pardoned. This was echoed by special counsel lawyer James Pearce, who noted that Nixon accepted the pardon after resigning, which he did before he could ever be impeached, further undermining the Trump attorney's claim that former presidents can be prosecuted only after they've been impeached and convicted by the Senate.

Judge Reverses Decision and Will Not Allow Donald Trump To Do Closing Arguments in New York Case

Meanwhile, as Trump's attorneys get slammed during the immunity hearing, the former president also received some bad news in his New York civil fraud trial.

According to Yahoo! News, Trump attorney Christopher Kise refused to agree to the conditions laid out by Judge Arthur Engoron to allow Trump to speak in court for the closing arguments scheduled for Tuesday. This led to the judge reversing his decision and not allowing Trump to go on with his planned closing arguments.

Previously, Trump turned the courtroom into a circus with his antics, and Engoron imposed conditions on him, including "limiting his remarks to what a defense lawyer would cover in a closing argument, sticking to material facts in the case, refraining from attacking the judge or his staff or delivering a campaign speech. "He may not seek to introduce new evidence." However, Kise protested these conditions, and thus, the judge reversed his decision.

This article is owned by Latin Post.

Written by: Rick Martin

WATCH: 'Shocking to hear someone say that': Weissmann on Trump immunity claims reaching new low - MSNBC