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.

  • @Dkarma
    link
    -14
    edit-2
    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.

    • @bassomitron
      link
      English
      8
      edit-2
      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.

        • @bassomitron
          link
          English
          31 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.