Trump files a motion to dismiss:
ETA: Changed link.
That should take about 5 minutes to rule on.
The old “It’s not a crime when the president does it” Gambit.
See Nixon interviews with Frost.
This seems like a motion one should have filed on day one.
Not if your aim is to delay a case from getting to trial.
That part I get. But Trump’s attorneys must know these tactics aren’t going to work by now. I suspect they continue jumping off cliffs at the behest of their client though.
That’s what I think, too.
This seems… familiar.
Denying that anything happened. Check.
Okay, something happened, but I wasn’t involved. Check.
Something happened, and I may have been involved, but I did so with honest intentions. Check.
Something happened, and I may have been involved, and I may not have been innocent, but I can’t be held responsible for reasons! Check.
And in each step, the delay grows. But, with each repeat of this cycle, our Judicial Branch, Loose Canons excepted, seem to grow more familiar and less tolerant. I hope some more Trump lawyers find themselves in need of assistance in handling sanctions soon…
So we have
the law provides absolute immunity “for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of [the President’s] official responsibility.”
Even if Trump sincerely believed his own lies about electoral shenanigans, surely nobody is going to argue with a straight face that hands-on personal supervision of electoral integrity in an election where he is a candidate is his responsibility.
Of course they will. Many.
Maybe not with a straight face, but instead with tears in their eyes.
I predict that one day, in one of these trials, one of Trump’s lawyers just won’t be able to control themselves any longer and will burst out into uncontrollable laughter in the middle of an argument.
Just for anyone who isn’t clicking through the X/Twitter links here’s something from CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/05/politics/trump-presidential-immunity-january-6/index.html
Apparently, his lawyers are ALSO claiming that the Senate’s Impeachment cleared him of all responsibility:
“President Trump was acquitted of these charges after trial in the Senate, and he thus remains immune from prosecution. The Special Counsel cannot second-guess the judgment of the duly elected United States Senate,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.
Notwithstanding the fact that the “Trial” in the Senate was as far gone from an impartial jury as is possible to imagine, but I can’t wait to see the court’s response to this statement of Senate supremacy over the courts. (Yes, I know that technically they’re claiming it over the the Special Counsel’s judgement, but still).
I hope they all end up facing serious sanctions for some of this poppycock.
They have attempted to preclude that possibility by citing precedent. One of the decisions cited in the motion was:
Poppy v. Cock, 460 U.S. 780 (1983)
The Constitution itself makes clear that impeachment is only about removal from office:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
(Article I, Section 3, Clause 7)
Of course, they’ll probably argue that only applies if convicted, and if acquitted, can’t be tried criminally. However, this clause makes clear that the only jeopardy Trump faced was removal from office and barring from future office; was never in jeopardy under the criminal law.
interesting, didn’t the majority of the senate vote guilty (not enough to reach the threshold, but a majority)? didn’t the minority leader himself say trump could be held accountable?
i await the filing from smith with bells on.
how do you exit this wild ride?
Some of the arguments in the brief can be advanced with a straight face. This one, however, is purely frivolous and does deserve sanctions.
Yeah, it’s enough to make one ask if these lawyers ever attended law school or any kind of civics class.
Dammit…
Yeah, I distinctly remember Mitch McConnell saying that even though they weren’t voting to impeach him, there’s no reason the legal system couldn’t go after him.
I doubt Mitch first checked with the GOP supreme court justices to see whether they agree.
The “party convicted” in an impeachment is exempt from the double jeopardy protection:
Trump was aquitted in the Senate. If the Republicans on the Supreme Court want to help him a bit, they can point this out. Reading the constitution literally, they will be correct. And from a civil liberties perspective, I do not want to see the double-jeopardy clause diluted.
However, many charges against Trump are different from what he was impeached for. No double jeopardy issue there.