Judge rejects Trump’s presidential immunity in Washington election case | international

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan refused this Friday In the decision Former President Donald Trump requested that the election case against him be archived in Washington, claiming that he enjoys absolute immunity by virtue of his position as president because the accusation was based on actions he took.

Subscribe to continue reading

Read without limits

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan refused this Friday In the decision Former President Donald Trump requested that the election case against him be archived in Washington, claiming that he enjoyed absolute immunity by virtue of his position as president because the accusation was based on actions he took while in office. In this case, Trump is accused of four crimes related to his electoral interference in trying to steal the 2020 elections, which he lost to Joe Biden.

The rejection of this petition was not surprising, but Trump’s lawyers can now appeal to the Court of Appeals and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court. This would allow Trump, at the very least, to delay the process so that the trial does not begin in early March, as planned. With its stalling strategy, it may be postponed until after the presidential elections in November. If Trump wins that election, he could maneuver the Justice Department to drop its charges. In extreme cases, he can even pardon himself.

For now, Judge Chutkan is rejecting the near-absolute immunity that Trump intended to uphold. And in the argument of his ruling that It extends to 48 pages, The surname Nixon appears 24 times. he watergate case, Which caused Richard Nixon to resign from the presidency in 1974, and was followed by a pre-emptive pardon from his successor in the White House, but the episode shows that Trump’s predecessors did not share his thesis regarding absolute immunity, which the judge rejects.

See also  CEO “Ambassadors” at the Cologne Gala | Who are the entrepreneurs poised to take over business in Europe?

“The text, structure, and history of the Constitution do not support this argument. No court, nor any other state authority, has ever accepted it. And this court will not do so,” says Chutkan. “Whatever immunities a sitting president may have, the United States has “Only one CEO at a time, and that position does not give him a chance to get out of prison for life.”

“Former presidents have no special conditions with respect to their federal criminal liability,” the text says with the judge’s legal grounds. “The defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, trial, conviction, and punishment for any criminal act committed while in office.” Chutkan, appointed by Barack Obama during his term, argues that a president who knows his actions may be subject to criminal liability will one day be motivated to do more to enforce the law.

the The proposal, which Trump submitted last October to a Washington court, consists of 52 pages. He began by pointing out that the President of the United States is the core of the system of government, the leader of the nation, the head of state, and the head of government. “To ensure that the president can exercise his office without hesitation, and without fear of his political opponents for decisions he does not like, the law provides absolute immunity” for acts falling within the “external perimeter” of official responsibility. [del presidente]”, he claimed, citing several precedents from the Supreme Court, which could eventually be called upon to decide this issue as well.

“Breaking 234 years of precedent, the current administration has impeached President Trump for actions that fall not just on the ‘periphery,’ but at the heart of his official responsibilities as President. In doing so, the prosecution does not, and cannot argue, that President Trump’s efforts to ensure the integrity of “The elections and defending them were outside the scope of his duties.”

Chutkan also rejects Trump’s claims that impeachment violates the former president’s freedom of speech, as his defense has argued. The judge notes that “it is well established that the First Amendment [que consagra la libertad de expresión] “It does not protect expression that is used as a tool to commit a crime.”

He asserts that “the defendant is not being tried simply for making false statements, but because he knowingly made false statements to further a criminal conspiracy and obstruct the electoral process,” acknowledging that if prosecutors cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the defendant knowingly made false statements, He will not be convicted.

The ruling comes on the same day that a federal appeals court in Washington ruled in another case that lawsuits accusing Trump of inciting the riots on January 6, 2021, can proceed.

The appeals court rejected Trump’s arguments that presidential immunity absolves him of liability in lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers. But the three justices leave the door open for Trump to later claim and prove, as the cases progress, that his actions were taken while exercising his office as president.

Follow all international information on Facebook And sor in Our weekly newsletter.

See also  Spain: A law regulating influencers comes into effect

Freddie Dawson

"Beer specialist. Award-winning tv enthusiast. Bacon ninja. Hipster-friendly web advocate. Total social media junkie. Gamer. Amateur writer. Creator."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top