Trump immunity hearing: Lawyer warns of 'frightening future' if Trump wins case

In his rebuttal to the special counsel team's arguments, Trump attorney D. John Sauer responded to special counsel attorney James Pearce's statement that the country has a "frightening future" if the criminal prosecution of a president is only possible if they are both impeached and convicted first.

"The 'frightening future' that he alleges, where presidents are very, very seldom if ever prosecuted because they have to be impeached and convicted first, is the one we've lived under for the last 235 years," Sauer said. "That's not a frightening future, that's our republic."

"What he is forecasting is a situation where the floodgates will be opened. We are in a situation where we have the prosecution of the chief political opponent who is winning in every poll [in the] election upcoming next year and is being prosecuted by the administration that he's seeking to replace. That is the frightening future that is tailor-made to launch cycles of recrimination that will shake our republic for the future."

The hearing concluded after Sauer finished his rebuttal. Trump may offer some remarks about the proceedings in a little while.

Special counsel attorney James Pearce delivered a fiery response to questions about the implications of Trump's indictment, calling it an "extraordinarily frightening future" if a president were to be granted complete presidential immunity.

"I mean, what kind of world are we living in?" Pearce said. "If, as I understood my friend on the other side to say here, a president orders a SEAL team to assassinate a political rival and resigned, for example before an impeachment, it's not a criminal act. I think that is extraordinarily frightening future."

Judge Karen Henderson asked Pearce how the court could rule regarding presidential immunity in a way that "would stop the floodgates?"

"I want to push back a little bit against this idea of a floodgate." Pearce responded, arguing that Smith's indictment of Trump was not risking a continuation of "tit-for-tat" prosecutions that could cascade into the future.

"The various investigations in the Clinton era didn't result in any charges. The fact that this investigation did doesn't reflect that we are going to see a seachange of vindictive tit-for-tat prosecutions in the future. I think it reflects the fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here," he said.

"Never before has there been allegations that a sitting president has, with private individuals and using the levers of power, sought to fundamentally subvert the democratic republic and the electoral system. And frankly, it's that kind of fact pattern arises again, I think it would be awfully scary if there weren't some sort of mechanism by which to reach that," he argued.

James Pearce, an attorney with special counsel Jack Smith's team, began his argument by reiterating that Donald Trump is "not above the law."

"Never in our nation's history has the president claimed that immunity from criminal prosecution extends beyond his time in office," Pearce said. "The president has a unique constitutional role, but he is not above the law."

Pearce argued that separation of powers, history, legal precedent, and the Constitution fail to provide a former president immunity from criminal prosecution. While a novel theory to support the idea of immunity might exist, the example of a former president attempting to overturn the election is not a reasonable application of immunity, according to Pearce.

Judge Pan asked Pearce why they weren't taking the position that Trump's appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction at this stage in the proceedings.

Pearce responded their interests were in "doing justice" and "to move promptly to satisfy and vindicate the public's and the defendant's interest in a proper resolution of this trial."

"But doing justice means getting the law right," he added.

In a notable exchange, Judge Henderson pressed Trump attorney D. John Sauer over his position that the actions detailed in Trump's indictment are related to his official duties to ensure that the laws of the U.S. are being "faithfully executed."

"I think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care of the laws be faithfully executed, allows him to violate federal laws," Henderson said.

She noted further that at this stage in the criminal process, where Trump is urging the court to dismiss the case before the trial begins, the law demands they assume the allegations in Smith's indictment are true.

The prosecution will next present arguments.