Trump claims presidential immunity in federal election case.
Trump’s Legal Team Argues Presidential Immunity Does Not Put Him Above the Law
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has responded to prosecutors’ claims that the defense of presidential immunity would make Trump untouchable by the law. They argue that this interpretation would simply bring us back to the original process envisioned by the founders, where Congress, not an unelected prosecutor, determines whether a President’s actions warrant punishment and potential criminal liability.
The former president filed a motion on Oct. 5 to dismiss the case, citing the absolute immunity granted to a U.S. president as established in the Nixon v. Fitzgerald ruling. Prosecutors countered that this argument would place Trump above the law, as no one, including the president, should be exempt from prosecution for serious crimes. The indictment against Trump alleges that he engaged in fraudulent activities following the 2020 elections, while Trump maintains that he was investigating allegations of fraud.
In their response, Trump’s attorneys argue that the prosecutors misunderstand the scope and purpose of presidential immunity. They emphasize that this is not a settled issue, as the Supreme Court and Circuit Courts have yet to fully address it due to the lack of relevant cases brought forward by prosecutors.
“As the Supreme Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the President must have the ability to make decisive—and often unpopular—decisions regarding matters of public concern,” the filing reads.
To allow the president to be sued for his actions in office would “require the President to hesitate at every turn, conscious of the very real threat that one of many hundreds of prosecutors around the country may one day question his motives and seek to imprison him for his actions as President,” they argued.
They also argued that preventing criminal prosecution for official acts does not put the president “above the law,” because the proper process to indict a president should come from Congress.
President Trump had been impeached, and then acquitted, twice by Congress.
Prosecutors argued this stripped him of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Defense attorneys argued in the new filing that this is not the case.
“The text of the Constitution—namely the Impeachment Judgment Clause—straightforwardly supports Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution absent conviction in the Senate,” the new filing reads. “A convicted party is liable to criminal prosecution. Thus, a President who is not ‘convicted’ is not liable.”
The Nixon v. Fitzgerald ruling that clarified presidential immunity said as much, they argued, as it specifically pointed to the impeachment process as the proper venue to indict a president:
“A rule of absolute immunity for the President will not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against misconduct on the part of the Chief Executive. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment.”
Other Motions to Dismiss
On Oct. 23, President Trump’s team filed three additional motions to dismiss the case on statutory grounds, constitutional grounds, and for “selective and vindictive prosecution.” Another motion was filed to strike inflammatory allegations from the indictment.
The attorneys argued that the original indictment repeatedly mentions individuals involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach event, without holding President Trump responsible for those actions.
“The public has a high awareness of, and strong views regarding, the actions at the Capitol on January 6, 2021,” the filing reads. “Allegations in the indictment relating to these actions, when President Trump has not been charged with responsibility for them, is highly prejudicial and inflammatory because members of the jury may wrongfully impute fault to President Trump for these actions.”
The motion was filed after a gag order was issued for President Trump, prohibiting him from making statements about individuals involved in the case, including prosecutors and potential witnesses. Prosecutors argued that his “inflammatory” remarks could bias jurors.
This claim of prejudice was echoed in the other motions to dismiss, which assert that the case is politically motivated.
“Biased prosecutors pursued charges despite the evidence, rather than based on it, with one prosecutor violating DOJ rules and ethical norms by forecasting the investigation in a television interview on ’60 Minutes,'” the motion read.
They noted that President Joe Biden had stated in a press conference, “We just have to demonstrate that he will not take power,” referring to President Trump.
“Three days after President Trump formally announced his candidacy, the Special Counsel was put in place as part of a flawed effort to insulate Biden and his supporters from scrutiny of their obvious and illegal bias,” the motion reads, arguing that the sequence of events “demonstrates vindictiveness.”
In a separate motion, attorneys argued that the prosecutors fail to provide evidence that President Trump violated the statutes mentioned in the indictment.
“Targeting an audience other than this Court, the prosecution’s indictment in this matter rants endlessly about President Trump’s politics and—in a shockingly un-American display of authoritarianism—accuses him of crimes for having and expressing the ‘wrong’ opinions,” the motion to dismiss reads.
Furthermore, in arguing that the case lacks constitutional standing, attorneys wrote that the prosecutors’ arguments and indictment violate the First Amendment and due process laws. The indictment claimed that because there was no “outcome-determinative fraud in the election” and because other government officials had assured President Trump that his concerns were unfounded, his actions to investigate the election constituted fraud.
“The First Amendment embraces and encourages exactly this kind of behavior,” the motion reads. “Additionally, as the United States Senate has previously tried and acquitted President Trump for charges arising from the same course of conduct alleged in the indictment, the impeachment and double jeopardy clauses both bar retrial before this Court and require dismissal.”
Why did the judge stay Trump’s gag order in the case?
Www.theepochtimes.com/us/judge-stays-trump-gag-order-in-federal-election-case-5514212?ea_src=author_manual&ea_med=related_stories”>
Now loading...