Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump asks federal appeals court to toss indictment accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election in late-night filing claiming he was protected under presidential immunity
Daily Mail ^ | 12/24/23 | James Gordon

Posted on 12/24/2023 10:34:08 AM PST by Libloather

Donald Trump demanded an appeals court in Washington dismiss a federal indictment accusing him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, in his latest attempt to avoid prosecution.

The former president's lawyers made a late-night court filing Saturday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, claiming he is immune to charges because they stem from actions he took while serving in the White House.

It is the latest development in an ongoing and pivotal legal dispute between Trump and special counsel Jack Smith over election interference.

The 77-year-old Republican argued the case should be dismissed because former presidents cannot face criminal charges for conduct related to their official responsibilities.

In a 55-page briefing to the court, Trump's lawyer John D. Sauer suggested that under the Constitution, courts are not able to hold the president accountable for any acts undertaken while in office.

'Under our system of separated powers, the judicial branch cannot sit in judgment over a president's official acts. That doctrine is not controversial,' Sauer wrote.

The filing states what the former president's lawyers have repeatedly asserted - that Trump had been working in his official capacity as president to 'ensure election integrity.'

'The unbroken tradition of not exercising the supposed formidable power of criminally prosecuting a president for official acts — despite ample motive and opportunity to do so, over centuries — implies that the power does not exist,' Sauer wrote.

His lawyers argued the indictment was unconstitutional and that Trump can only be criminally prosecuted for 'official acts' if he is impeached and convicted by the Senate.

'The Constitution establishes a powerful structural check to prevent political factions from abusing the formidable threat of criminal prosecution to disable the President and attack their political enemies,' Trump's attorneys wrote in the Saturday filing.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; History; Local News
KEYWORDS: court; immunity; president; trump
Fight these commie bastids.
1 posted on 12/24/2023 10:34:08 AM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

2 posted on 12/24/2023 10:37:06 AM PST by stars & stripes forever (Blessed is the nation whose GOD is the LORD. (Psalm 33:12))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stars & stripes forever

The brief description of Trump’s argument above is persuasive. I suspect our current USSC will ultimately agree.


3 posted on 12/24/2023 10:52:03 AM PST by desertsolitaire ( M)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
He's going to win because they didn't vote on his Jan 6th impeachment until AFTER he left office.

And remember, 10 minutes before Bubba left the White House for the last time, an attorney stepped to the Mike and issued a statement that Bubba would never be tried for any crimes that occurred while he was President.

4 posted on 12/24/2023 10:56:51 AM PST by Sacajaweau ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Funny that the Daily Mail is publishing this.

It’s their Kings and the way their abuses which led to that protection in the Constitution.

If the Rats want that protection to evaporate and be at the mercy of Inquisitioners like Jack Smith, then every one of their guys is now liable. Better make sure that no Republican administration EVER gets in again under those circumstances.


5 posted on 12/24/2023 11:12:35 AM PST by Regulator (It's fraud, Jim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The thing that bothers me about this is that it should be no crime to demand the exposure of vote fraud and the non-legislated Illegal acts the states added to process of voting.


6 posted on 12/24/2023 11:27:10 AM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: desertsolitaire

The separation of powers argument is sound, of course, and perhaps it is the easiest argument to make. However, it is maddening that it would even be necessary to make it - since there is nothing wrong with attempting to “overturn” an election by challenging its veracity.

It would be one thing if he attempted to overturn it by force - but simply demanding that evidence of fraud be heard is not a crime. In fact, it is a patriotic duty.


7 posted on 12/24/2023 11:50:16 AM PST by enumerated (81 million votes my ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The Nazi and Commie bass tards’ “democrazy” don’t have “presidential immunity” unless the President is a commie RAT like Barry Sombrero and Joe Pedough.


8 posted on 12/24/2023 12:06:10 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (They've begun dismantling Arlington Cemetery, next comes diggin up white solders and dumpin' 'em.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: enumerated; All
Thank you for referencing that article enumerated.

"However, it is maddening that it would even be necessary to make it - since there is nothing wrong with attempting to “overturn” an election by challenging its veracity [emphasis added]."


Do you mean like elite Democrats have repeatedly tried to do?

Democrats Have Objected to Electoral Vote Certification For the Last 3 GOP Presidents (1.1.21)

9 posted on 12/24/2023 12:25:44 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Indictment accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

To this day the yellow media and democrat party have yet to say a word about Gore demanding and getting a recount.

Chad counting was just huh Moe.

Sorry sob’s a filthy lot like hogs


10 posted on 12/24/2023 1:23:55 PM PST by Vaduz (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Why can’t or why isn’t Trump making this argument after some pretty high pollutant well known shysters filed their brief’s with the court???

President Regans Attorney General, Ed Meese,

“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” the December 20th amicus brief argued. “Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift or Jeff Bezos.”

https://www.oann.com/newsroom/ag-ed-meese-files-amicus-with-scotus-arguing-special-counsel-jack-smith-was-illegally-appointed/


11 posted on 12/24/2023 3:27:21 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson