Former President Donald Trump has intensified his claims for presidential immunity from prosecution, asserting that presidents of the United States should be granted full immunity even if they "cross the line" while in office. Trump made his remarks on social media platform Truth Social, stating that without full immunity, it would be impossible for a president to properly function.

These comments come as Trump awaits a crucial ruling from a federal appeals court in Washington concerning his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump's status as a defendant in court has provided him with a platform to rally his political supporters in the Republican primaries. However, his claims have also sparked concerns among his opponents and critics, particularly in anticipation of the 2024 presidential election.

Last week, a federal appeals panel expressed skepticism regarding Trump's immunity argument, questioning the potential implications it could have, including the ability for presidents to sell pardons or take illegal actions against political opponents. Trump is seeking to have special counsel Jack Smith's election subversion criminal case against him dismissed. Smith has charged Trump with four counts related to his efforts to retain power after losing the presidential election, to which Trump has pleaded not guilty.

During the recent hearing, the special counsel's team argued that no individual, including a president, should be above the law, emphasizing the importance of having a mechanism to prevent deliberate unlawful actions by future presidents striving to maintain power.

The appeals court is currently reviewing the question of presidential immunity, and it is possible that the case could eventually reach the US Supreme Court for a final judgment. While Trump publicly advocates for "full immunity," his legal team has been advocating for certain caveats, asserting that immunity should cover actions that could be deemed official duties of the presidential office.

One of Trump's attorneys argued before the federal court of appeals that a former president could only be charged with a crime if the Senate convicts the president after an impeachment in the House. However, judges on the panel expressed doubt and skepticism about the broad extent of constitutional protection that could encompass nearly all actions undertaken by a president.

As the case progresses, it remains one of Trump's limited opportunities to potentially derail his upcoming trial scheduled for early March. The immunity question raises significant issues involving the separation of powers and is expected to shape the understanding of presidential authority and accountability.

The ruling from the federal appeals court in Washington will be closely watched, as it holds the potential to have far-reaching implications not only for Trump but also for future presidents, shaping the boundaries of legal protections and accountability within the highest office in the United States.