A lot of legal experts appeared worried after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Donald Trump's immunity case, but there's no way the right-wing justices are going to buy all of what the former president is selling, a former FBI agent said on Saturday.
Former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa weighed in on the Supreme Court hearing, pointing out the novelty of Trump's absolute presidential immunity argument that would see an ex-president avoid any charges as long as they weren't convicted at an impeachment trial.
"I don’t know who needs to hear this, but the requirement that a POTUS needs to be impeached and convicted before being prosecuted is something literally no one ever argued until Trump," she said on social media. "Apart from the fact that this claim grossly misreads the Impeachment Clause, the conservative justices won’t bite because it undercuts the very theory of almost unlimited presidential power to which they subscribe."
ALSO READ: ‘Fraudulent’: Trump tormentor Lincoln Project loses big money in cybertheft scheme
She continued:
"To wit, it would place POTUS’ power to enforce the laws against former presidents at the mercy of Congress. Not going to happen (and none of them explored this in oral argument, it was too dumb even for them I guess)."
Political and legal commentator Allison Gill, better known as "Mueller, She Wrote," noted that right-wing justice Amy Coney Barrett used "the 'clear statement of Congress' idiocy to undercut the impeachment judgement clause ridiculousness."
Gill explained:
"She asked [Trump lawyer John] Sauer: 'Special Counsel makes a great point that if [Trump] were impeached and convicted, that he could be prosecuted after impeachment, right?' Sauer: 'Yes.' Barrett: 'But you also say these statutes don't apply to him because he’s not explicitly mentioned, so how can you say he'd be subject to prosecution after impeachment if these statutes don't apply to him?'"