Trump Says If He Doesn’t Have Presidential Immunity, Biden ‘Doesn’t Either’

Former President Donald Trump waves as he departs Trump Tower for Manhattan Criminal Court, to attend the first day of his trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments linked to extramarital affairs, in New York City on April 15, 2024. Photo by CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images

Ahead of an April 25 Supreme Court hearing on whether former President Donald Trump has presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, the 45th president took to his social media platform Truth Social to argue that if he doesn’t have immunity, neither does President Joe Biden.

“REMEMBER, if I don’t have Presidential Immunity, then Crooked Joe Biden doesn’t have it either, and he would certainly be Prosecuted for his many ACTUAL CRIMES,” he wrote on April 20.

In a chain of several posts, President Trump summarized the arguments that his attorneys will be presenting to the high court—in his absence.

President Trump won’t be in the Supreme Court courthouse on April 25, but he will be in court in New York some 200 miles away. A trial court judge has ordered President Trump to be present as a jury hears evidence in a case accusing him of falsifying business records in an attempt to influence the 2016 elections. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan further ruled that evidence from President Trump’s time in office could be presented to the jury, rejecting his presidential immunity defense.

Presidential immunity is not outlined in the Constitution, but comes from a Supreme Court ruling after an Air Force contractor sued President Richard Nixon personally when the contractor lost his job. The high court ruled that a president enjoys absolute immunity for actions even in the “outer perimeter” of his office—in civil cases. The court has never addressed presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, and the April 25 hearing will be a historic one.

On Truth Social, President Trump argued that if a president doesn’t have immunity from criminal cases “it would be impossible for a president to properly function, putting the United States of America in great and everlasting danger!”

He wrote that a president cannot be “guided by the fear of retribution,” which attorneys had argued in court filings would hang over future presidents’ heads should the Supreme Court rule against President Trump. Such a precedent would allow incoming administrations to arbitrarily prosecute their predecessors, and even campaign on such a promise, they claimed.

‘Nation-Destroying Ruling’

A federal appeals court had been dismissive of the retribution argument when it earlier this year rejected President Trump’s defense, finding that the scenario was unlikely as prosecutors would exercise discretion and judgment and not abuse their offices.

“A Nation-destroying ruling like the one handed down by the D.C. Circuit cannot be allowed to stand,” President Trump wrote.

“If not overturned, as it should be, this decision would terribly injure not only the Presidency, but the Life, Breath, and Success of our Country. A President will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite Party’s Vicious Retribution after leaving Office,” he wrote. “I know from personal experience because I am going through it right now. ”

“It will become a Political Weapon used for Election Interference. Our Elections will be corrupted and under siege. So bad, and so dangerous for our Nation. SAVE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY!” he added.

President Trump has argued that many actions he had taken during his presidency could not have happened without knowing he had presidential immunity. Without it, presidents may be “paralyzed” by “the prospect of wrongful prosecution,” he added.

“This could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail of a President. The other side would say, ‘If you don’t do something, just the way we want it, we are going to go after you when you leave office, or perhaps even sooner,’” he added.

He said legal scholars were thankful the Supreme Court was tackling this issue. Last year, the Supreme Court initially declined to review President Trump’s defense at the special counsel’s request, instead allowing the appeals court to hear the appeal first, as it normally would. But after the appeals court rejected the defense earlier this year, the Supreme Court granted the special counsel’s second request to review the defense after President Trump’s attorneys applied to the high court for a stay the appeals court preemptively refused.

“This is in no way what the Founders had in mind. Legal Experts and Scholars have stated that the President must have Full Presidential Immunity,” he wrote.

‘Dangerous Game’

President Trump has frequently said that the four indictments against him are politically motivated “witch hunts,” “election interference,” and done at the behest of the Biden White House.

In recent media remarks, he has come to dub them “Biden trials.”

President Trump said that his political opponents “desperately” want to see him in prison. “He is playing a very dangerous game, and the great people of America WILL NOT STAND FOR IT.”

President Biden has stated that he has no part in these cases, two run by special counsel Jack Smith on the federal level, and two others at the county level.

President Trump made a long list of things President Biden could later be prosecuted for if presidents are found to not be immune from criminal prosecution, including allegedly profiting personally from foreign entities through use of his office, which sparked an impeachment inquiry by House Republicans.

He also listed the exit from Afghanistan, which was widely criticized as it had resulted in several American deaths, the southern border crisis that has become a central campaign issue for both sides, and “the Decimation of American Wealth through the Green New Scam, and so much more.”

Experts have predicted that the Supreme Court will issue a decision in June, leaving just enough time for the case to go to trial before the presidential elections in November. The Supreme Court earlier this year heard an appeal of a ballot disqualification case that might have taken President Trump off the ballot in several states, issuing a quick decision within a month.