Trump Attorneys: Appeals Court Should Toss D.C. Indictment On 'Immunity' Grounds
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.
Immunity isn't in the constitution for anyone. The supreme court just made it up at one point to try and keep themselves from being sued. I assume that's what they're appealing with here. No one knows how it works because, again, they just made it up.
Lots of immunities are in the Constitution. Others are part of the legal framework upon which the Constitution relies. And others were made up whole cloth from an incorrect reading of history (such as the special immunity conferred to LEO commonly referred to as “qualified immunity”).
Qualified immunity is among the worst things that has ever happened to this country. Maybe even worse than ruling that corporations are people but can't be given the same consequences that people are given because they're corporations with lots of money. Excuse me, I mean lots of freedom of expression.
Yeah, QI is pretty awful. The awfulness is compounded by the fact that the reasoning which created it relied upon ahistorical information and in places where it actually makes sense for some level of immunity to be available, that immunity is covered by other principles.
Any immunity that police require should be covered by Good Samaritan laws.