Former President Donald Trump is standing firm in his belief of "complete and total" presidential immunity as he awaits a decision from an appeals court regarding his federal election interference case. Trump has reiterated his immunity claims, stating that even actions that "cross the line" should fall under total immunity to prevent years of legal disputes over the definition of right versus wrong.

Trump made his latest remarks on Thursday via his social media platform in capital letters. He went even further during an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity later that day, unpromptedly reiterating his case for immunity. In response to a request to deliver a closing message to New Hampshire voters, Trump briefly mentioned his campaign slogan of "Make America Great Again" before delving into his legal troubles and the importance of immunity for presidents.

Constitutional scholar Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at University of Chapel Hill, expressed skepticism about Trump's claim of total immunity from criminal prosecution, describing it as a "dangerously bad argument" that contradicts the intent of the framers and the Constitution itself. Gerhardt emphasized that the president is not a king and should be held accountable.

Even one of Trump's Republican rivals, Nikki Haley, spoke out against his assertions. During a CNN town hall, she stated that presidents should not have unchecked power and that there should be accountability, emphasizing that no one is above the law. However, she mentioned that if she were president, she would pardon Trump if he were convicted to prevent further division in the country.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals also expressed skepticism during arguments earlier this month, with one judge describing Trump's arguments as paradoxical. The panel raised questions about whether a president could sell pardons or order assassinations without facing consequences.

Trump's attorney argued that a criminal prosecution of a president can only occur if they are impeached and convicted first for actions taken while in office. The appeals court has not provided a timeline for a decision, but depending on the outcome, the case could potentially reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Notably, there are no Supreme Court rulings on whether sitting or former presidents are immune from criminal charges related to their actions in office. Trump is the first current or former president to face criminal indictment, making this a landmark case that could shape the understanding of presidential immunity in the future.