In what Washington Post scribe Lisa Rubin characterized as “[Donald] Trump’s biggest loss yet,” Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the Trump legal team’s assertion that the former President had criminal “immunity” during his actions as President on January 6 — before and after the Capitol attack.
Addressing the “four counts of criminal conduct that [Trump] allegedly committed during the waning days of his Presidency,” Trump’s lawyers had moved to dismiss the charges “based on Presidential immunity.”
Judge Chutkan rejected the premise, based on the “text, structure and history” of the Constitution, which do not support the claim. “No court — or any other branch of government — has ever accepted it,” Chutkan writes, saying that Chief Executive position “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”
The Constitution’s text creates no “special conditions” about the criminal liability of former presidents, and therefore, Chutkan rules, “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”
[NOTE: Trump’s lawyers concede in filings that his actions were “performed within the ‘outer perimeter‘ of his official responsibility.”]
“Chutkan’s ruling might turn out to be the most consequential legal defeat yet for Trump and quite possibly a decisive turning point in the 2024 presidential election.” Read this excellent explanation by @JRubinBlogger of why that’s so:https://t.co/ss6wzUxKqL
— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) December 4, 2023
Famous Harvard Law School star Laurence Tribe, quoted in Rubin’s article, called the grounding of Chutkan’s decision “solid as a rock.”
Tribe added on X: “Chutkan’s ruling might turn out to be the most consequential legal defeat yet for Trump and quite possibly a decisive turning point in the 2024 presidential election.”
.jpg){kind=link}