In a recent oral argument on Donald Trump's claim to absolute presidential immunity, the implications of his argument have sparked a heated debate regarding the extent of a president's authority and accountability. Trump's lawyers argue that a president cannot be tried in criminal court for his official conduct unless he is first impeached and convicted. This claim has drawn attention to the potential scenario where a president could order a military unit to commit murder, and as long as they are not impeached, they would be immune from any criminal prosecution.

During the appeal, Judge Florence Pan posed a thought-provoking question: What if a president were to order SEAL Team Six to assassinate their opponent, and as long as they were not impeached, they could not be tried for murder? Trump's lawyer initially attempted to avoid addressing the question but eventually conceded that, according to their argument, such a scenario would indeed provide immunity.

The absurdity of this implication is not lost on many. One cannot help but notice the discrepancy in hypothetical examples, with SEAL Team Six often mentioned while Delta Force is often overlooked. Nevertheless, the larger concern lies in a potential rule that grants a president immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed within the scope of their official duties, regardless of their intent or motivations.

Considering the grave implications, some legal experts argue that this argument undermines the fundamental principles of accountability and the rule of law. They highlight the danger of allowing a president to commit acts such as assassination, with no possibility of facing criminal consequences as long as they maintain their position and avoid impeachment.

Furthermore, this argument raises questions about senators' role in the impeachment process. During Trump's recent impeachment trial, more than thirty Republican senators voted against convicting him for insurrection, citing the fact that he had left office. Applying the same logic to President Joe Biden, one could argue that if he were to order Delta Force to kill Trump and then immediately resign, he could potentially evade impeachment and any criminal prosecution.

The absurdity continues when considering the possibility that a president, under this line of reasoning, may not even require resignation. For instance, President Biden, after sending Delta Force to assassinate Trump, could theoretically order the military unit to eliminate all senators who might vote against him in an impeachment trial. As long as there is no impeachment, the argument asserts that no crime could be prosecuted.

While these extreme hypotheticals may appear far-fetched, they serve to highlight the potential dangers and erosion of the rule of law if such a legal argument were to prevail. Critics argue that it effectively grants the president unchecked power, turning them into an untouchable figure above the law.

It is important to note that the purpose of this article is not to advocate for any specific action or promote violence. Instead, it seeks to shed light on the concerning implications that could arise if a former president can seriously argue for absolute immunity in committing acts of violence against political opponents.

As the debate over presidential accountability and authority continues, legal experts and lawmakers must consider the long-lasting consequences of such arguments on the foundations of democracy and the rule of law.

In conclusion, the ongoing legal immunity debate has raised significant concerns about presidential authority and the erosion of accountability within the highest office. The implications of this argument should prompt a thorough examination of the delicate balance between executive power and the principles that underpin a democratic society.