Trump's 'King of America' Claim Dismissed by Legal Expert as a 'Sure Loser'

Legal Experts Challenge Trump's Unprecedented Defense Strategy

by Zain ul Abedin
Trump's 'King of America' Claim Dismissed by Legal Expert as a 'Sure Loser'
© Scott Olson/Getty Images

In a recent analysis by legal experts, former President Donald Trump's reliance on presidential immunity as a defense in his ongoing legal battles has been strongly criticized. Speaking to Salon, Bennett Gershman, a former prosecutor and current law professor, described Trump's claim as "preposterous," emphasizing the non-monarchical nature of the United States government.

Gershman's remarks come amidst Trump's efforts to use presidential immunity to shield his actions following the 2020 presidential election, which he contends were within his official capacity as President. Gershman's sharp critique suggests that Trump's argument, if accepted, would effectively equate his role to that of a monarch, a notion inconsistent with American democratic principles.

"If his unlawful, unconstitutional, and criminal behavior can be deemed official acts, then we must deem Trump to have been King of America," Gershman stated, highlighting the absurdity of such a claim in the context of U.S.


Supreme Court's Dismissal

This legal perspective gains further significance as it aligns with the decision of the Supreme Court, which declined to entertain this argument at the request of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Smith, a Justice Department prosecutor, has accused Trump of conspiring to defraud the U.S. by attempting to overturn the presidential election results. As the matter progresses to an appeals court set to hear arguments in January, Gershman remains skeptical about the success of Trump's defense.

"Trump's claim of absolute immunity for his actions to try to subvert the results of the 2020 electoral, given the uncontested facts, is preposterous, nonsensical, and a sure loser," he told Salon. Adding to this viewpoint, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani concurs with Gershman's assessment but suggests an alternative motive behind Trump's legal strategy.

Rahmani posits that Trump is using the executive immunity and double jeopardy appeal more as a procedural tactic to delay his trial rather than as a viable defense. According to Rahmani, Trump's primary aim is to postpone his criminal trials until after the November election, under the belief that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, should he win reelection.