Lawyers say ‘allegedly improper’ behavior by president falls within ‘outer perimeter’ of duties and is protected from prosecution

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.

  • @[email protected]
    52•1 year ago

    Only applies to civil cases. Go pound sand, you 300 lb mass of shit stuffed into an orange tinted skin suit.

    • @Dkarma
      -36•1 year ago

      It is actually the opposite.

      • @bassomitronEnglish
        20•1 year ago

        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.

        • @Dkarma
          -14•1 year ago

          Trump was subject to civil suits as president. You’re simply wrong.

          • @bassomitronEnglish
            9•1 year ago

            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?

            • @Dkarma
              -14•1 year ago

              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.

              • @bassomitronEnglish
                8•1 year ago

                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.

                  • @bassomitronEnglish
                    3•1 year ago

                    Except that’s not what you said originally. Way to try gaslighting and changing your original argument, though. Fuck off and have a great day, I’m done responding to obvious baiting.