Lawyers say ‘allegedly improper’ behavior by president falls within ‘outer perimeter’ of duties and is protected from prosecution
Lawyers for Donald Trump have urged a federal judge to dismiss the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, advancing a sweeping interpretation of executive power that contends that former presidents are immune from prosecution for conduct related to their duties while in office.
The request to throw out the indictment, handed up earlier this year by a federal grand jury in Washington, amounts to the most consequential court filing in the case to date and is almost certain to precipitate a legal battle that could end up before the US supreme court.
In their 52-page submission to the presiding US district judge, Tanya Chutkan, Trump’s lawyers essentially argued that Trump enjoyed absolute immunity from criminal prosecution because the charged conduct fell within the so-called “outer perimeter” of his duties as president.
The filing contended that all of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment, from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification to organizing fake slates of electors, were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.
Whether Trump’s motion to dismiss succeeds remains uncertain: it raises novel legal issues, such as whether the outer perimeter test applies to criminal cases, and whether Trump’s charged conduct even falls within a president’s duties.
Isn’t already settled that canidate trump is a different “person” from president trump- and that meadows was operating outside his job duties as chief of staff?
Yeah. It is. It is not the job of the president to overturn the lawful results of an election. It is the job of president to ensure a smooth transition of power according to the dictates of that election.
It’s so hilarious that trump couldn’t take his own advice to Hilary: “you lost. Get over it.”
Harry Litman does takes on YT and according to him this is more trying to set the stage for appeal in case some crazy Judge on appeal or the SCOTUS take an interest in saving his horrid ass heres an invidious link https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=OIzttF_w5rU
Only applies to civil cases. Go pound sand, you 300 lb mass of shit stuffed into an orange tinted skin suit.
It is actually the opposite.
The article literally says it’s novel for outer perimeter to be applied in criminal charges, meaning it’s only been applicable to civil cases in the past.
Bold of you to assume a Trump supporter can read.
Trump was subject to civil suits as president. You’re simply wrong.
In 1982, the Supreme Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that the president enjoys absolute immunity from civil litigation for official acts undertaken while in office.[11] The Court suggested that this immunity was broad (though not limitless), applying to acts within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official duties.[11] Fifteen years after Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court held in Clinton v. Jones that the president does not possess absolute immunity from civil litigation surrounding acts he carried out that were not part of his official duties (which is often incorrectly presented as referring only to acts carried out before becoming president).[12][13] The 2020 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Vance held that the president is subject to subpoenas in criminal prosecutions for personal conduct with the same legal threshold as anyone else.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity
You were saying?
Sued by stormy Daniels while pres and lost. You were saying?
Your own link proves you wrong. It says they u can’t bring civil litigation for acts he committed while in office not that you cant bring civil suits against a standing president at all.
Wrong again. Read what I quoted closely. He got sued by Stormy for things he did that were not considered presidential duties. Additionally, it was for things he did before becoming president. Lastly, in Vance v Trump it straight up says that the president is not immune from criminal subpoenas. Fucking hell, man, reading comprehension.
Removed by mod
I love how they’re not denying that he’s a criminal. This should be used against him during his hearing.
So if Biden did the same thing, it’s A-OK?
I didn’t think so fash.
That’s what cracks me up. They’re trying to argue that a president can do whatever they want, as if they wouldn’t lose their absolute shit (justifiably so) if Biden did a fraction of what Trump did.
lol. so rather than acting as attorneys they are arguing exactly the dumb shit trump is asking them to argue.
And doesn’t this basically admit to the crime?
yeah I mean sounds like it.
Hes done that with all the criminal and civil cases except the rape one, in the documents he says hes allowed to have them under the presidential records act, the Ga call he says he says no one told him in the call he was doing something illegal so id doesn’t count, the hush payments he says its too late so it should be dropped and on the civil one in NY he says that’s how business is done and hes being persecuted. In short hes gotten away for so long with so much shit that he thinks he can do WHATEVER the fuck he wants and we are all wrong cause hes daddys super special boy. lmao seeing his dumb stupid face on the NY civil case was super satisfying he looks like hes constipated
edit I forgot somehow that in the rape case he did say that ‘stars’ get away with it ‘fortunately or unfortunately’ and since hes a star so yea… there’s that
They’re wrong but I guess they have to try?
It’s the most dangerously anti-democratic defense so, it fits for them.
Gee, or how criminals can get away in “politics”
Get fukt
Immunity?
Really arguing for monarchical powers while in office. Unassailable kingship where you can do whatever you want and take no blame.
I’m loving watching this piece of shit distressed like a fish out of water
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Lawyers for Donald Trump have urged a federal judge to dismiss the criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, advancing a sweeping interpretation of executive power that contends that former presidents are immune from prosecution for conduct related to their duties while in office.
The filing contended that all of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment, from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification to organizing fake slates of electors, were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.
The outer perimeter test is widely seen as applying to only civil cases, for instance, and Trump is alleged as having acted not in his capacity as a president, but as a candidate.
The Trump lawyers repeatedly suggested that the outer perimeter test – used by the supreme court in Nixon v Fitzgerald (1982) in which the justices found that presidents have absolute immunity from damages liability for acts related to their presidential duties – should apply to criminal cases.
“To hold otherwise would be to allow the President’s political opponents to usurp his or her constitutional role, fundamentally impairing our system of government,” wrote Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche, John Lauro and Gregory Singer.
The Trump lawyers also claimed that all of the conduct in the indictment was protected, notably including the fake electors plot, since it was related to him trying to get Pence to act in a “certain way” on 6 January 2023 – though omitting that “way” was to unlawfully stop the certification.
The original article contains 620 words, the summary contains 257 words. Saved 59%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
