Former President Donald Trump's assertion of absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office was challenged during a recent interview with CNN anchor Jim Acosta. Acosta questioned the rationale behind President Gerald Ford's pardon of former President Richard Nixon if presidents truly enjoyed total immunity. The debate over presidential immunity comes as Trump faces criminal charges related to his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

During the interview, Acosta discussed the potential implications of accepting Trump's argument of absolute immunity with former White House ethics head, Norm Eisen. Eisen deemed Trump's assertion as an "astonishing proposition," expressing concerns that if accepted, it would allow presidents to commit a range of crimes while in power, turning presidential elections into opportunities for "criminally minded" individuals.

Trump is currently involved in a federal election interference case, requesting the dismissal of the charges against him based on his claim of total immunity. However, Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan has already rejected this argument, prompting Trump to appeal the decision to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.

Facing four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding, Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges. He argues that he should be immune from prosecution since the alleged acts took place during his presidential tenure.

Special counsel Jack Smith has called for the Supreme Court to intervene and rule on Trump's immunity argument to ensure the case proceeds as scheduled in March. However, the court has declined to take up the matter at this time.

Refuting Trump's claim, Eisen emphasized that the concept of absolute immunity finds no basis in the Constitution, historical precedent, or court rulings. He pointed out that if Trump's argument were valid, Nixon would not have resigned during the Watergate scandal and would have instead relied on his supposed immunity.

Analysts suggest that Trump's immunity argument is not solely about securing a legal victory but rather about delaying or "running out the clock" on the pending criminal cases. Critics argue that this strategy serves to protect Trump ahead of a possible presidential run in 2024.

As the court case looms and the debate on presidential immunity intensifies, the question of whether a sitting president can be held accountable for criminal acts committed while in office continues to shape the legal and political landscape.