SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Former President of the United States Donald Trump speaks to the press at his civil fraud trial in Manhattan, New York, United States on October 4, 2023.
(Photo: Kyle Mazza/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Trump Channels Nixon With 'Presidential Immunity' Defense in January 6 Case
Donald Trump's legal team asked a federal judge to dismiss the criminal charges related to his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Oct 05, 2023
Former President Donald Trump on Thursday asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C. to toss the January 6-related charges against him, invoking a presidential immunity defense that Richard Nixon infamously summarized in 1977 as, "When the president does it... that means that it is not illegal."
In a 50-page filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Trump's legal team argued that where "the president's actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution."
The filing points to Supreme Court precedent, including Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a case in which a civilian U.S. Air Force employee sued Nixon for damages after he was terminated. The high court ruled 5-4 that the president is immune "from damages liability for acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his official responsibility"—a line that Trump's legal team quotes in its new filing.
Trump faces four criminal counts in the January 6 case, which was brought by U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith. The charges include conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and conspiracy against rights.
The former president has pleaded not guilty to all four counts, which are among the more than 90 charges he is facing across four criminal cases.
In an amicus brief filed earlier this year in a separate January 6-related case against Trump, the U.S. Justice Department argued that while Nixon v. Fitzgerald "establishes a rule of absolute immunity for the president's official acts," it isn't "a rule of absolute immunity for the president regardless of the nature of his acts."
"In the United States' view," DOJ added, "such incitement of imminent private violence would not be within the outer perimeter of the office of the president of the United States."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Former President Donald Trump on Thursday asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C. to toss the January 6-related charges against him, invoking a presidential immunity defense that Richard Nixon infamously summarized in 1977 as, "When the president does it... that means that it is not illegal."
In a 50-page filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Trump's legal team argued that where "the president's actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution."
The filing points to Supreme Court precedent, including Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a case in which a civilian U.S. Air Force employee sued Nixon for damages after he was terminated. The high court ruled 5-4 that the president is immune "from damages liability for acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his official responsibility"—a line that Trump's legal team quotes in its new filing.
Trump faces four criminal counts in the January 6 case, which was brought by U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith. The charges include conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and conspiracy against rights.
The former president has pleaded not guilty to all four counts, which are among the more than 90 charges he is facing across four criminal cases.
In an amicus brief filed earlier this year in a separate January 6-related case against Trump, the U.S. Justice Department argued that while Nixon v. Fitzgerald "establishes a rule of absolute immunity for the president's official acts," it isn't "a rule of absolute immunity for the president regardless of the nature of his acts."
"In the United States' view," DOJ added, "such incitement of imminent private violence would not be within the outer perimeter of the office of the president of the United States."
From Your Site Articles
- Special Counsel Asks SCOTUS to Rule on Trump Jan. 6 Case ›
- Win for Trump as US Supreme Court Punts on Immunity Question ›
- Trump Claims Presidents 'Have Absolute Immunity,' But Judges Seem Skeptical ›
- 'Citizen Trump': Appeals Court Says No Immunity in Jan. 6 Case ›
- As Supreme Court Takes Trump Immunity Case, Clarence Thomas Urged to Recuse ›
- Supreme Court Urged to Reject 'Intolerable and Dangerous' Trump Immunity Claim ›
- Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments | Common Dreams ›
Former President Donald Trump on Thursday asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C. to toss the January 6-related charges against him, invoking a presidential immunity defense that Richard Nixon infamously summarized in 1977 as, "When the president does it... that means that it is not illegal."
In a 50-page filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Trump's legal team argued that where "the president's actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution."
The filing points to Supreme Court precedent, including Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a case in which a civilian U.S. Air Force employee sued Nixon for damages after he was terminated. The high court ruled 5-4 that the president is immune "from damages liability for acts within the 'outer perimeter' of his official responsibility"—a line that Trump's legal team quotes in its new filing.
Trump faces four criminal counts in the January 6 case, which was brought by U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith. The charges include conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and conspiracy against rights.
The former president has pleaded not guilty to all four counts, which are among the more than 90 charges he is facing across four criminal cases.
In an amicus brief filed earlier this year in a separate January 6-related case against Trump, the U.S. Justice Department argued that while Nixon v. Fitzgerald "establishes a rule of absolute immunity for the president's official acts," it isn't "a rule of absolute immunity for the president regardless of the nature of his acts."
"In the United States' view," DOJ added, "such incitement of imminent private violence would not be within the outer perimeter of the office of the president of the United States."
From Your Site Articles
- Special Counsel Asks SCOTUS to Rule on Trump Jan. 6 Case ›
- Win for Trump as US Supreme Court Punts on Immunity Question ›
- Trump Claims Presidents 'Have Absolute Immunity,' But Judges Seem Skeptical ›
- 'Citizen Trump': Appeals Court Says No Immunity in Jan. 6 Case ›
- As Supreme Court Takes Trump Immunity Case, Clarence Thomas Urged to Recuse ›
- Supreme Court Urged to Reject 'Intolerable and Dangerous' Trump Immunity Claim ›
- Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments | Common Dreams ›
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.