'Framers would be rolling over': Historian explains 'absurdity' of Trump’s immunity claim

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin has documented the lives and acts of numerous American presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, both Roosevelts and Richard Nixon, among others. But she said former President Donald Trump's insistence on having absolute broad criminal immunity for all acts in office is simply "unprecedented."

During a Thursday segment with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Goodwin remarked that she would love to be a fly on the wall when historians decades from now are telling the story of America's current political moment. She further reminded viewers that Thursday's oral arguments in the Supreme Court's chambers — in which Trump attorney John Sauer argued that a president shouldn't be held criminally liable for assassinating a political rival — can be simply understood as Trump being the only ex-president to not "accept the loss of his presidency."

"This is the unprecedented thing... and that's why we're here today. And that's what I think history will focus on," she said.

READ MORE: 'Political and traitorous decision': Experts outraged by SCOTUS taking Trump immunity case

At that point, Cooper brought up the parallels between Trump's absolute immunity argument and Nixon's argument that he was immune from being prosecuted in the Watergate scandal due to him holding the presidency. He played a clip from Nixon's interview with journalist David Frost, in which he insisted, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal."

"I think the framers would be rolling over in their beds if they heard him say something like that," Goodwin said. "The idea that simply by ascending to that office that you can do whatever you want and that makes it a law? I mean that's an absurd thought."

A final decision on Trump's argument that he should be protected from criminal prosecution from acts committed while he was in the White House has been held up for nearly 150 days, when the ex-president appealed U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling striking down his immunity claim in December. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith attempted to bypass the circuit courts and get the Supreme Court to settle the question was rejected, with the Court punting to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, after a three-judge panel on the DC Circuit — which included two Democratic-appointed judges and one Republican appointee — upheld Chutkan's previous ruling, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certioriari anyway. This further delayed Trump's DC election interference trial, which was initially scheduled to begin on March 4.

READ MORE: Chutkan slams Trump in latest ruling rejecting immunity claim: No 'divine right of kings'

The Court appeared somewhat skeptical of Sauer's pro-immunity arguments in favor of immunity during Thursday's oral arguments. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor in particular criticized Sauer's assertions that a president can only be held criminally accountable if they are first successfully impeached and convicted by both chambers of Congress.

Justices could feasibly hand down a decision at any time after oral arguments, and it remains unclear if the 6-3 conservative majority will ultimately side with Trump or with prosecutors. And it's not impossible for judges to agree on some aspects of immunity but not all, thus sending the case back to the DC Circuit to resolve outstanding questions.

The Court technically has until the end of its term in June to issue a decision, which means Trump's DC trial may not begin until at least September (Judge Chutkan indicated she would allow two to three months for both sides to prepare for trial).

READ MORE: 'Uncomfortable how long it's taken': Experts say slow pace of appeals court helps Trump

Watch the video of Goodwin's interview below, or at this link.