WATCH: JD Vance SCHOOLS CNN’s Kaitlan Collins On Presidential Immunity

Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) confronted CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Wednesday night, challenging the double standards in the legal scrutiny of former President Donald Trump compared with other presidents. The confrontation comes amidst critical Supreme Court hearings that could potentially redefine presidential authority. Last week the Supreme Court deliberated for nearly three hours about Trump’s claim to immunity from prosecution regarding actions taken during his tenure, particularly his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.

The landmark case pits Trump’s legal team against special counsel Jack Smith, who has levied charges against the former president in his bid to remain in office post-defeat. During a heated discussion on CNN, Vance pointedly asked Collins, “Should Barack Obama be prosecuted for killing an American citizen via a drone strike?” The question came in response to Collins pressing Vance on the circumstances under which a president might justify a military coup.

Vance argued that actions deemed as ‘official acts’ of a presidency are safeguarded by various checks and balances within the U.S. government, including impeachment and budgetary controls by Congress. He said, “There are a number of checks and balances in our system… There’s the impeachment process. There’s the budgeting authority that Congress has.”

“There are a number of examples in American history where if you apply the standard, the lawfare standard of the Biden administration against Donald Trump, it would make the presidency impossible to actually execute the law. So, in the name of taking down their political opponent, Kaitlan, these guys are really pushing a legal theory that I think would destroy the presidency, whether a Democrat or Republican was in charge,” Vance explained.

WATCH:

(BREAKING: Glenn Beck sounds the alarm on the American economy – prepare yourself now)

The D.C. Circuit, among other lower courts, has dismissed former President Trump’s assertions of immunity, affirming that he is susceptible to criminal prosecution. At the Supreme Court, discussions have centered on whether the deeds underpinning the criminal charges against Trump qualify as official acts shielded by presidential immunity. The justices are wrestling with intricate issues concerning the demarcation between a president’s official duties and private endeavors, and the extent of immunity in cases purportedly aimed at undermining an election.

These discussions further delve into constitutional questions, such as the necessity of impeachment and conviction prior to any criminal prosecution of a president. Trump’s attorneys contend that presidential duties should be immune from criminal charges to prevent political persecution. Conversely, advocates for the U.S. government emphasize the imperative to maintain the rule of law and the integrity of the presidency by holding a president accountable for criminal misconduct, underscoring the principle that the law reigns supreme over all, including the president.

Anticipated by early July, the Supreme Court’s verdict will profoundly impact not only Trump but also the future legal framework of the presidential office. The court boasts a 6-3 conservative majority.

(BEWARE: Here’s how to shield yourself from Biden’s collapsing economy)