In a recent questioning by CNN anchor Jim Acosta, former White House ethics head Norm Eisen challenged former President Trump's assertion of total immunity from prosecution for his conduct while in office. Acosta raised the issue of former President Ford's pardon of former President Nixon, questioning the reasoning behind it if presidents are immune from criminal prosecution.

Eisen dismissed Trump's argument as an "astonishing proposition," emphasizing the potential consequences if such immunity were accepted. He highlighted that if presidents had absolute immunity, it would create an environment where the criminally minded would vie for the Oval Office, putting American law at risk. Eisen further stated that this would open the door to a wide range of crimes, including bank robberies, kidnappings, and even murders.

Former President Trump is currently fighting a federal election interference case, where he argues for total immunity for actions taken while in office. However, Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan has already rejected Trump's immunity argument. Despite this, Trump has appealed the decision to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.

The charges against former President Trump involve four counts related to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding. While Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges, his argument for immunity suggests that the acts mentioned in the indictment were taken while he served as president.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has requested the Supreme Court to rule on Trump's immunity argument to ensure the case progresses as scheduled in March. However, the court has declined to take up the case at this time.

Eisen strongly refuted Trump's claim of absolute immunity, asserting that no such concept exists in the Constitution, historical records, or court precedent. He highlighted that if Trump's argument were valid, former President Nixon would not have resigned during the Watergate scandal, as he could have used absolute immunity to protect himself.

Eisen suggested that Trump's immunity argument is not motivated by a desire to win the case, but rather to delay any resolution and run out the clock on the criminal proceedings, potentially influencing the 2024 presidential election in November.

As the legal battle continues, the question of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution remains at the forefront, with implications for the future accountability and integrity of the highest office in the United States.