Internet trolls Trump's claims that his acts ‘can never be examinable by courts’ ahead of appeals fight

WASHINGTON, DC: Donald Trump’s legal team has submitted their final filing, before oral arguments are heard next week, on January 9, at the US Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.

The hearing will consider the significant issue of Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution when operating under his “official duties” as president.

The panel of judges hearing the case includes Karen Henderson, Michelle Childs, and Florence Pan, per a report by Law&Crime.

Trump’s lawyers, including John Sauer, Todd Blanche, and John Lauro submitted 41 pages on Tuesday, January 2, that argue for dismissing the indictment against the former president.

The indictment pertains to allegations that Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 US election results.

What did Donald Trump’s lawyers entail in their last court filing?

Trump's arguments are not novel and have been previously submitted in his unsuccessful attempts to have the case dismissed at the lower-level courts.

Special prosecutor Jack Smith had attempted to take the matter to the Supreme Court; however, his efforts were unsuccessful.

The immunity question is expected to be addressed in the Supreme Court, regardless of the circuit judges' eventual ruling.

Primarily on appeal, Trump argues that he cannot be tried in criminal court by prosecutors on similar or related matters related to January 6, 2021, as he was previously impeached by Congress for inciting the insurrection at the Capitol on that date and then acquitted by the Senate.

In his brief, Sauer argued that “Impeachment, not criminal prosecution, provides the principal check against alleged Presidential malfeasance.”

Sauer invoked the Federalist Papers in support of his argument, stating that impeachment protects against “politically motivated prosecutions.”

Sauer further contended that stripping this safeguard would “diminish the President's independence and protection from ‘new fangled artificial treasons... by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other.’"

To date, no court in the United States has had to resolve the issue of immunity from criminal prosecution for a former president, a matter that has sparked profound controversy in recent times.

Trump's legal team argues that prosecutors have misconstrued an "ahistorical literalism" of the Constitution in their efforts to maintain the indictment and that the impeachment clause's plain language—"but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law"—protects the former President in this instance.

Sauer wrote, “The negative inference is thus proper; when the Clause says ‘the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to’ criminal prosecution, it means the Party acquitted shall not be.”

He then goes on to say that removal and disqualification by the means of Impeachment are themselves "criminal punishments."

Furthermore, as president, Trump's official acts "can never be examinable by the courts," according to them, and doing so would violate a 234-year tradition of "not prosecuting presidents for their official acts despite vociferous calls to do so from across the political spectrum."

 

Although this may be true for criminal charges, it has been determined that Trump is not immune from civil lawsuits related to January 6, 2021, specifically those filed by police officers who were severely beaten by the mob at the Capitol building that day.

The issue of the separation of powers is anticipated to be a focal point of both sides' arguments next week.

Internet dissects the validity of Donald Trump’s legal team’s arguments

People on Reddit analyzed the case and gave their two cents on where they predict this might end up.

One Reddit user wrote, “If a president can never be tried or examined for official acts then a president can murder the party attempting impeachment with impunity. Does anyone with a brain think that sounds reasonable?"

Another user stated, "So after scraping through the bottoms of several barrels he’s come to some lawyers that are like “well I guess we could try a sov cit defense”."

Another user remarked, "Yes, because a man with nothing to hide must hide everything he's ever done."

One user said, "What makes me nervous is if the Supreme Court sides with Trump that he can't be charged for crimes while in office and then Trump comes back into office... One of the few ways to address dictator Trump would have already said they can't do anything to him. It would ripple in bad ways."

 

A Reddit user stated, "Trump keeps insisting that he has immunity because he was acting as President on Jan 6th. "Remember, I was not campaigning—The 2020 Election was LONG OVER. What I was doing is bringing to light the fact that the Election was, without question, Rigged and Stolen. As President, and Commander-in-Chief, it was my duty to do so! If I did not do this, I would have been in violation of my Oath of Office." However, it is well known that Trump knew the election hadn't been stolen. Once Jack Smith proves that, the immunity defense falls apart."

 

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.