In a recent appearance on Fox News, former President Donald Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, defended the argument for presidential immunity by assuring viewers that Trump "didn't kill anyone." The discussion took place in the aftermath of Trump's lawyers presenting their case for immunity in federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.

During the segment, Habba was questioned about whether presidential immunity would still apply if Trump had ordered SEAL Team 6 to carry out the murder of a political rival. In response, another of Trump's attorneys, John Sauer, argued that criminal prosecution could only take place after impeachment and conviction.

Habba further defended this argument when speaking to host Sean Hannity, stating, "The real facts are so easy to win that we have to now argue the slippery slope argument of, 'If he kills someone, will he be held accountable?' He didn't kill anyone. He didn't cause an insurrection. He didn't get charged for it. But they're using hypotheticals to frighten America."

The defense of presidential immunity in relation to extreme scenarios has sparked controversy, with critics highlighting the potentially dangerous implications of using such arguments. The idea that a sitting president could potentially evade accountability for ordering or being involved in unlawful actions has raised concerns among legal experts and the public alike.

However, it is important to note that the discussion on Fox News focused solely on the arguments put forth by Trump's legal team during the appeals court hearing, rather than any specific criminal accusations against the former president.

The debate surrounding presidential immunity continues to be a contentious issue, particularly in the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. As the legal proceedings unfold, the question of accountability for the actions of a former president remains at the forefront of public discourse.

It is yet to be determined how the arguments presented by Trump's attorneys will be received by the courts and the wider legal community. As the discussion surrounding presidential immunity evolves, the potential consequences for the future of executive accountability will be closely scrutinized.