In a fiery early morning post on his social media platform, former President Donald Trump asserted that the president of the United States should enjoy complete immunity, even for actions that "cross the line." This comes as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit prepares to rule on Trump's claim of immunity in the D.C. election interference case, which is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal experts suggest that Trump's claim may face an uphill battle. Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade expressed skepticism, stating that she found the claim weak and doubted that the court would accept it. McQuade also highlighted Trump attorney Alina Habba's attempt to sway Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during a recent Fox News interview, suggesting that such an approach would likely backfire.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance pointed out a crucial flaw in Trump's argument, stating that he is the only president to have ever faced indictment. Vance emphasized that the notion of presidents being granted immunity from prosecution contradicted legal doctrine, and the court would consider the real-world implications of their decision.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann condemned Trump's strategy of making outlandish claims, describing it as a counterproductive approach. Weissmann firmly believed that the court panel would not rule in favor of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, as such a concept has never been the law and is not expected to be accepted.

The outcome of the U.S. Court of Appeals' ruling on Trump's claim remains to be seen, but legal experts are skeptical about its chances. Trump's plea for presidential immunity may have hit a wall of doubt and criticism, as doubts about its legality and strategic implications surface. The case could potentially make its way to the Supreme Court, but the prevailing sentiment among legal experts suggests that Trump's claim is unlikely to prevail.