On Thursday, former President Donald Trump sought to have his 2020 election case dismissed, invoking presidential immunity as the basis.
Through his legal representation, Trump approached U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan with a request to dismiss the indictment that accuses him of meddling in the 2020 electoral process.
The crux of the argument presented by Trump’s legal team is that the actions he is indicted for were executed within the scope of his presidential mandate, thus rendering him “absolutely immune from prosecution,” as per the court filing, The Daily Caller reports.
Trump’s lawyers emphasized that the activities specified in the indictment—inclusive of public discourse, liaising with the Justice Department, state legislators, Congress members on election matters, and coordinating elector slates—are encapsulated within his official duties.
The legal document asserts, “Breaking 234 years of precedent, the incumbent administration has charged President Trump for acts that lie not just within the ‘outer perimeter,’ but at the heart of his official responsibilities as President.”
The defense contends that the prosecution’s charges against Trump, aimed at ensuring electoral integrity, fall squarely within his official capacity, negating any grounds for indictment outside this scope.
Furthering their argument, Trump’s lawyers articulated that a legitimate indictment can only materialize post a presidential impeachment followed by a Senate conviction.
However, they highlighted that Trump had already faced the Senate, which acquitted him for the said conduct, thereby upholding his immunity.
The legal counsel warned of a potential “chilling effect” on presidential discretion should this immunity be overlooked.
They drew historical parallels to underline their case, referencing instances where vehement accusations of criminal misconduct were directed at sitting presidents and their advisors during their tenure, Daily Caller notes.
Citing the infamous ‘corrupt bargain’ accusation against John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, the document reminds that although succeeding administrations, often from the opposing political factions, assumed power post such allegations, none resorted to criminal prosecution based on actions undertaken within the official presidential capacity.
