Trump Immunity Argument Absurd, Court Declares

The 57-page decision by a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court in D.C. is unsparing in its dismissal of Trump's claim that former presidents have immunity from any and all actions - including crimes -- that they commit while in office, Teresa M. Hanafin wrote for Boston Globe.

The judges dismissed Trump's claim that future presidents would be too scared to take any bold or meaningful actions because they would fear that their successors, if of a different political party, would prosecute them. I Photo: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Court

The judges dismissed Trump's claim that future presidents would be too scared to take any bold or meaningful actions because they would fear that their successors, if of a different political party, would prosecute them.

They also rejected his argument that former presidents couldn't be prosecuted criminally unless they first had been impeached and convicted by Congress.

They pointed out that the Constitution carries a profound interest in the enforcement of federal criminal laws, and that the president has "a constitutionally mandated duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'"

The justices added: "It would be a striking paradox if the President -- the only person vested with that solemn constitutional duty -- were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity." In other words, you're required to enforce the laws, not break them.

WEEKLY FEATURE : Jose Mari Chan And The Christmas Anthem