Donald Trump tore into President Biden and warned of ‘bedlam’ if his prosecution is allowed to go forward, in an angry statement just minutes after his lawyer argued in court he enjoys absolute immunity from his time as president.

Trump made the comments as he called the Biden administration a ‘threat to democracy’ and once again claimed to have uncovered ‘tremendous voter fraud’ despite multiple court findings rulings against his and his allies’ claims.

‘It’s very unfair when a political opponent is prosecuted by the DOJ, by Biden’s DOJ. So they’re losing in every poll, losing in almost every demographic…numbers came out today that are really very mind-boggling if you happen to be Joe Biden,’ Trump said at a Washington, D.C. hotel.

‘And I think they feel this is the way they’re going to try and win and that’s not the way it goes. It’ll be Bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing. It’s a very bad precedent. As we said it’s the opening of a Pandora’s Box,’ Trump said.

He was picking up on a phrase his lawyer John Sauer used in court, and one his lawyer John Lauro made alongside Trump,

‘If we adopt what the Special Counsel wants, if we adopt what President Biden wants, then we open the Pandora’s box to political prosecution after political prosecution after political prosecution,’ said Lauro. ‘In fact, Joe Biden could be prosecuted for trying to stop this man from becoming the next President of the United States,’ he said.

‘It’s a very sad thing that’s happened with this whole situation. When they talk about threat to democracy that’s your threat to democracy. And I feel that as a president you have to have immunity,’ Trump said.

A reporter shouted a question to Trump after he had completed his remarks about his ‘bedlam’ comment, and whether he would tell them ‘no matter what, no violence.’ Trump walked away without responding.

Trump then said Biden could be prosecuted for the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which came after a delayed departure date negotiated during the Trump administration, before saying immunity was necessary.

‘The lowest moment, I think, in the history of our country was Afghanistan – the way we withdrew. With shame. We surrendered. People were killed, 13 great soldiers killed…he [Biden] could be prosecuted for that. So you can’t have a president without immunity.’

Then Trump brought out President Obama’s ordering of drone strikes, ‘which were bad. They were mistakes, terrible mistakes.’ Still, he said, ‘You really can’t put a president into that position. So I think most people understand and we feel very confident that eventually hopefully at this level, but eventually we win. A president has to have immunity.’

He was referencing Obama’s ordering of hundreds of drone strikes to target Al Qaeda and other extremists in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

Trump spoke after a three-judge U.S. Appeals Court heard oral arguments inside the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse, located steps away from the Capitol where his supporters rioted on January 6 and from the former D.C. hotel that was a hub of activity during his presidency. (Trump sold the lease at an estimated $100 million profit).

Inside the courtroom, Trump’s attorney faced a blizzard of questions from the judges over his claims of presidential immunity – including whether he could use the military to assassinate a political rival.

Trump is trying to toss his criminal indictment over January 6 in Washington, D.C. in part on his immunity claims.

He is arguing that the allegations against him fell within the perimeter of his official responsibilities as president while in office.

As Trump looked on in court appeal court judge Florence Pan asked his lawyer: ‘A yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to a criminal prosecution?’

Trump lawyer John Sauer, the former Missouri solicitor general, responded: ‘If he were impeached and convicted first.’

‘So your answer is no,’ shot back Pan.

‘My answer is qualified yes…you’d expect a speedy impeachment and conviction,’ Sauer said.

The judge also put Trump’s claim to immunity to the test by asking if a president could sell U.S. military secrets, or sell pardons, without then being criminally prosecuted.

Pan told Sauer: ‘I’ve asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could be taken by a president and could be considered official acts and asked you would such a president be subjected to criminal prosecution….and your answer was no.’

Sauer countered that selling pardons might not be held to be an official act.

Judge Pan also picked at Sauer’s leaning on the role of impeachment.

‘Your position is as I understand it, if a president is impeached and convicted by Congress then he is subject to criminal prosecution correct?’ she said.

‘Isn’t that also a concession that a president can be criminally prosecuted for an official act?’

In his arguments, Sauer said prosecuting a former president created a dangerous precedent.

He said: ‘To authorize the prosecution of a president for official acts would open a Pandora’s box from which this nation may never recover.’

The grilling from the bench has high stakes not just for Trump’s criminal case, but for the timing of his trial.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has set a trial date of March 4, the day before Super Tuesday, and an appeal by Trump to the entire circuit or the Supreme Court could stall the case.

Special counsel James Pearce, arguing for the government, went back to the analogy in his own time speaking to the judicial panel.

‘What kind of world are we living in … if a president orders his SEAL team to assassinate his political rival and resigns, for example, before an impeachment? Not a criminal act,’ he said, characterizing the Trump legal position.

Judge Michelle Childs brought up the Midlands Asphalt Corp. v. U.S. case – a potential precedent that has intrigued legal analysts because it provides a potential way for the court to quickly dismiss Trump’s appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

But Pearce expressed his preference that the court rule ‘on the merits’ of Trump’s claim of absolute immunity for official acts done while president. He raised issues about various future motions the defense might make that could entangle the case.

Sauer argued that allowing for the prosecution for his official acts would open up a ‘Pandora’s box.’

He asked if George W. Bush could be prosecuted for waging war on Iraq based on false intelligence, or if Barack Obama could be prosecuted for a drone strike.

Sauer said to allow prosecution of a president for official acts ‘would open a Pandora’s box from which this government may never recover.’

Pearce said in the event of a drone strike that killed civilians, ‘The court would properly recognize some kind of immunity,’ but argued, ‘That is nothing like what we’ve got here.’

If the panel rules against Trump, he could try to appeal his case to the entire D.C. Court of Appeals, and then go to the Supreme Court.

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson asked Sauer about times in the past when the courts have weighed in on presidential authority, including Harry S. Truman’s seizure of steel mills during the Korean War.

‘How does that square with your position that the judiciary can never review exec action?’ she pressed.

She also commented on the president’s oath to uphold the Constitution.

‘I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,’ she said.