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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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.