Special Counsel Jack Smith is scheduled to respond by Dec. 30, after which a three-judge panel will hear oral arguments on Trump's 'immunity' appeal of his D.C. indictment on Jan. 9.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is scheduled to respond by Dec. 30, after which a three-judge panel will hear oral arguments on Trump’s ‘immunity’ appeal of his D.C. indictment on Jan. 9

A federal appeals court should dismiss Donald Trump’s federal felony indictment on election-subversion charges on the grounds that he has “immunity” from prosecution for acts committed while president, attorneys for Trump argued in a court filing Saturday night.

The 71-page opening brief from Trump’s legal team took direct aim at Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal charges, calling them “unlawful and unconstitutional” because under the U.S. government system the judicial branch “cannot sit in judgment over a President’s official acts.”

Trump’s lawyers argue that the only way a current or former president can be charged for official acts is if he’s both impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. They also lean hard into an untested legal argument that Trump can’t be prosecuted for acts where he did get impeached but the Senate acquitted him.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    241·
    11 months ago

    Trump’s lawyers argue that the only way a current or former president can be charged for official acts is if he’s both impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.

    So what Trump’s lawyers are arguing is that Biden should legally be able to wait until the last week (not enough time for an impeachment) of his holding of office, perform an extrajudicial imprisonment of Trump in Federal prison for a week, then leave office without any legal consequences because of immunity for acts performed while president without being impeached for it?

    • mriguy@lemmy.world
      3·
      11 months ago

      Under this interpretation, extrajudicial execution of TFG and all his congressional enablers (and problematic SCOTUS justices, and followers) would also be AOK. The law couldn’t touch him. Heck, with enough violence, he could head off any impeachment as well.

      I don’t see SCOTUS handing that power to a Democrat.

      Although knowing Democrats, they’d do nothing with the power, turn over power to Trump, and be wiped out on January 21st.