Alina Habba Complains About Video of Her and Donald Trump in Court

Donald Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba, has complained about the plethora of footage of her sitting in court with the former president, branding it a "demise of the American justice system."

Trump, who is the GOP's 2024 frontrunner for the presidential nomination, is currently facing a number of legal battles, including an election interference case, from which he has argued presidential immunity.

Department of Justice (DOJ) Special Counsel Jack Smith last year charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights in connection to the investigation.

The charges were over the riots at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the alleged plot to submit false slates of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College. Trump maintains his innocence and has pleaded not guilty to all charges, accusing prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes.

Trump has sought to make the case that presidential immunity would shield him from being tried for these charges, as he argued a former president cannot be charged for official actions. Critics who doubt his argument will be successful say he was acting as a candidate, not in his official duty, when allegedly working to thwart the election results.

A federal appeals court heard Trump's immunity case Tuesday morning when Judge Florence Y. Pan questioned Trump's attorney D. John Sauer about an argument made to defend him during his impeachment trial following the January 6 riot, when a group of his supporters violently protested the election results.

Hours later, lawyer Habba made an appearance on Fox Business' The Evening Edit, where she reiterated Trump's team's assertion that immunity should apply.

"Absolute immunity is called just that on purpose," she told host Elizabeth MacDonald. "It's a very simple fact that all presidents are granted presidential immunity within the scope of their employment within the outer perimeters of their employment. I've argued it many times.

"The hypotheticals that were given [in court] today are just that—they were hypotheticals that do not relate to President Trump. Our team did a great job arguing and I think that it's a very simple decision that if it's decided wrong, if those skeptics are correct, will have to be taken up, but I don't think that'll happen."

"Presidents have to be able to speak without fear as the president, and act without fear as a sitting president of retribution, both civilly and criminally," Habba went on. "And what we're seeing is absolutely that.

"They like to call President Trump a person who's going to have a retribution campaign, but that is exactly what they are doing to him. It is exactly what they fear is what they've done themselves. They don't want you to look at their behavior, so they accused him of it. And now they're trying to stop him because they can't beat him in the polls. It's election interference at its finest."

As Habba spoke, footage was flashed up onscreen that showed her sitting alongside Trump in court.

"The fact that there is so much footage of me sitting in court next to the president is so sad and such a demise of the American justice system," Habba stated, before returning her attention to the immunity argument.

"I can tell you that presidential immunity—something I've argued and won many times—[is] something that has to be upheld and should be upheld. It is clear cut, I think we've made that clear. And it is very important, or it's going to be a slippery slope for every president, not just President Trump."

During Tuesday's hearing, Pan used Trump's past legal arguments against him, saying: "There is a quote in the Congressional record, in which your client said, through counsel, no former office holder is immune from investigation or prosecution."

Although attorney Sauer was not working for Trump at the time, former Trump lawyer David Schoen argued at the time that the Constitution said "a convicted party following impeachment shall nevertheless be liable to indictment and punishment" while arguing the impeachment trial was unconstitutional.

"Clearly, a former civil officer who is not impeached is subject to the same," Schoen argued in 2021. "We have a judicial process in this country. We have an investigative process in this country to which no former officeholder is immune. That's the process that should be running its course."

Sauer responded to Pan's question saying that is true of "subordinate officers" but that "principle officers" including the former president are "immune unless he is impeached and convicted."

Continuing to probe him on the argument, Pan said: "He was president at the time, and his position was that no former officeholder is immune. And in fact, the argument was there's no need to vote for impeachment because you have this backstop, which is criminal prosecution, and it seems that many senators relied on that in voting to acquit."

Sauer said Pan's assessment of the argument swaying senators to acquit Trump "relies on speculation."

The court heard arguments for more than an hour Tuesday morning, with the judges expressing some skepticism toward Trump's attorneys' claims. They agreed to reserve judgment and could release a decision on his immunity in the coming weeks. That decision may then end up being appealed to the Supreme Court ahead of the election interference trial, which is scheduled to begin March 4.