In a jaw-dropping move, a lawyer for former President Donald Trump has argued that presidents are immune from prosecution for even the most egregious crimes, like murder, unless first impeached and convicted by Congress. This audacious claim came during an appeals court hearing in Trump’s ongoing election interference case.

Judge Florence Pan pressed Trump lawyer D. John Sauer on this point, asking if a president who ordered the assassination of a political rival without facing impeachment could be prosecuted. Sauer’s response, a “qualified yes” meaning essentially no, sent shockwaves through the legal community.

This argument builds on Trump’s long-held belief in expansive presidential immunity and his previous claim that impeachment is the sole remedy for presidential misconduct. However, legal scholars widely pan Sauer’s interpretation of the Constitution’s impeachment judgment clause, which states that even after Senate acquittal, a president remains “liable and subject to indictment.”

While Trump lost his second impeachment trial, it focused on inciting insurrection, not the specific charges in the current case. Additionally, many Senate votes for acquittal stemmed from Trump no longer being in office, suggesting they wouldn’t have shielded him from criminal proceedings.

Despite the apparent weakness of Sauer’s argument, its immediate benefit is stalling the trial court proceedings scheduled for March. If Trump loses before the three-judge panel, he can appeal further, potentially delaying a verdict until after the November elections.

Should Trump win re-election, he could then pardon himself or instruct the Justice Department to drop the case. This scenario, in turn, could trigger calls for a third impeachment, making the legal saga far from over. Despite its outrageous nature, Trump’s bold immunity claim serves as a reminder of the ongoing debate about presidential accountability and the potential limits of American justice.