Judge rejects Trump’s presidential immunity in Washington election case | International
Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan refused this Friday In a resolution Former President Donald Trump has demanded documents in Washington about alleged election fraud.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limitations
Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan refused this Friday In a resolution Former President Donald Trump has requested documents in the election case against him in Washington, alleging that he has absolute immunity because of his presidency because the charges stemmed from his actions while in office. Trump has been charged with four counts of election interference for trying to steal the 2020 elections, which he lost against Joe Biden.
Not surprisingly, that petition was denied, but Trump’s lawyers can now appeal to the appeals court and eventually the Supreme Court. That would allow Trump, at the very least, to delay the process so that the investigation does not begin in early March as planned. Because of its delaying strategy, it could be delayed until after the presidential election in November. If Trump wins that election, he could maneuver the Justice Department to drop the charges. In an extreme case he can even excuse himself.
For now, Judge Sutgen rejects the near-absolute immunity that Trump wanted to cling to. In argument of his judgment, this Extending over 48 pages, The surname Nixon appears 24 times. He water gas, It led to the resignation of Richard Nixon as president in 1974, after which his successor in the White House pursued a preventive pardon, but the episode shows that Trump’s predecessors did not share his absolute immunity thesis, which the judge rejected.
“The text, structure and history of the Constitution do not support that contention. No court or any other authority of the government accepted it. This court will not do that. Whatever immunity a sitting president gets, there is only one chief executive in the United States at a time, and that position does not grant a life sentence,” says Sudken.
“Former presidents do not enjoy special conditions related to their federal criminal liability,” the judge’s text of legal grounds reads. “The defendant may be subject to a federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and sentence for any crime committed while in office.” Appointed during Barack Obama’s tenure, Sutgen argues that a president who knows his actions will be subject to criminal liability will one day be motivated to do more to enforce the law.
The The 52-page, 52-page motion Trump filed in a Washington court this October He pointed out that the President of the United States is an important part of the governmental system, the head of the nation, the head of the country and the head of the government. “To ensure that the President executes his office without hesitation and without fear of unpopular results from his political opponents, the law provides “absolute immunity” for acts ‘within the outer bounds’ of official responsibility.” [del presidente]”, he alleged, citing several precedents of the Supreme Court, which may eventually be decided in this case as well.
Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.
“Breaking 234 years of precedent, the incumbent administration has impeached President Trump for actions that are at the core of his official responsibilities as president, not just the ‘outer periphery.’ Nor can it be argued,” argued Sudcon’s now-dismissal brief.
Sudgen also rejects Trump’s claims that the impeachment violates the former president’s free speech rights, as his defense argues. The judge noted, “The First Amendment is well established [que consagra la libertad de expresión] “It does not protect speech used as an instrument of a crime.”
“The defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements, but for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to disrupt the election process,” he says. If he knowingly makes false statements, he will not be punished.
The ruling comes on the same day that a federal appeals court in Washington ruled in another case that cases against Trump accused of inciting riots on January 6, 2021 can move forward.
An appeals court has rejected Trump’s arguments that presidential immunity exempts him from lawsuits by Democratic lawmakers and police officers. But the three justices have left the door open for Trump to later prove, as the cases progress, that his actions were taken while in office as president.