Legal analyst Sol Weisenberg said on Fox News Tuesday that he doubts there will be a positive outcome in former President Donald Trump's presidential immunity lawsuit.

Weisenberg appeared on “The Ingraham Angle” to discuss Trump's lawsuit, highlighting the former president's recent appearance in Washington, D.C., for a hearing on his executive privilege claim. Fox host Laura Ingraham asked analysts for their thoughts on the outcome of the incident, noting how this could be the start of a “very dangerous trajectory.”

Weisenberg said he believes the D.C. Circuit will rule “against” Trump in the immunity case, and the “most concerning” aspect for prosecutors is that it is “obviously political.” He claimed that.(Related: New York AG says Trump should pay $370 million in civil fraud trial)

“First of all, I think you're right. I think the D.C. Circuit will rule against President Trump on this particular issue. And the most worrying thing about the prosecution is that it's clearly a political I think it's about being objective,” Weisenberg said. “If they were serious about investigating the former president, they would have immediately launched an investigation and indicted him.”

Weisenberg went on to say that the only case “that should have been considered” for the former president was insurrection. However, he stressed that even this claim is meaningless. The analyst also said he believes the U.S. Supreme Court will rule that efforts to remove President Trump from the ballot are “null and void.” (Related: Jack Smith wants to use old tweets, 'Stand Back and Stand by' comments as evidence against Trump)

“First of all, the only thing they should have considered charging him with was rioting. I'm not saying they filed a lawsuit. In fact, they filed a lawsuit. They didn't have one, so they came up with this dumb theory. But that's all they should have seriously considered. And it took until August or July of 2023 to file charges. There's no need to wait until May and then almost immediately insist on being tried in two separate federal districts,'' Weisenberg said.

“I think that's what's so upsetting to people. But what we're ultimately going to hear from the Supreme Court is a very strong opinion that the effort to keep Trump off the ballot is completely invalid.” I think it will. But, well, I'm not at all confident that they're going to consider the issue of presidential immunity, and I don't know what direction that's going to go.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith attacked Trump with two grand jury indictments in 2023. The first case was filed in Florida, alleging the former president mishandled documents, and the second case was brought against Trump in Washington, D.C., alleging he was involved in a conspiracy to interfere in the 2020 election. according to In the Washington Post.

Since the allegations were raised, the former president has argued that executive privilege should shield him from criminal prosecution, particularly regarding Smith's claims about 2020 election interference. Trump appeared in court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday to support his team's argument that it is immune from federal charges. They reportedly argued that he was acting within his official capacity as president during the campaign, and that he will stand trial because he was acquitted in his second impeachment trial. He claimed that it should not be done.

Smith initially sought to expedite Trump's request for presidential immunity to the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2023, but the justices rejected that request.