MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin explained that Donald Trump's excuse that he has absolute immunity as a president isn't quite the legal defense he seems to think it is.
Trump has spent the better part of the past month claiming that if immunity is eliminated for him, then no president will be able to function as a leader. Critics explain that the country has made it through 234 years with no president facing what he has. Indeed, no president has been charged with attempting to overthrow an election.
While there has been some talk about Trump's immunity in the classified documents case, at issue was what Trump did upon leaving the White House when he no longer had any kind of immunity. Still, Trump's lawyers said that they would move for dismissal based on the immunity defense on or before Feb. 22.
Read Also: Donald Trump’s un-American ploy for criminal immunity
The 2020 election allegations took place while Trump was still in office.
To Rubin, however, the legal filings make it "clear that all of Trump’s charged conduct concerns actions and decisions when he was no longer president. As laid out in the current version of the indictment, the first 32 counts involve conduct that special counsel Jack Smith alleges took place between Jan. 20, 2021, and Aug. 8, 2022 (i.e., the date of the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago); the remaining counts against Trump center on events or periods of time in May 2022 or later."
She doesn't think that Trump's lawyers actually think it'll be a successful defense, but they're making a go of it anyway. Instead, she continued, they seem more focused on the accusations of "vindictive prosecution," which could persuade Trump appointee Judge Aileen Cannon, who is presiding over the documents case.
In the Stormy Daniels hush money case, Trump isn't even trying an immunity defense. While the agreement happened before the 2016 election, Rubin recalled that checks were signed from the Oval Office from Feb. to Dec. 2017.
"Nonetheless, he has never moved to dismiss that indictment on grounds of presidential immunity. Why? Because a federal judge has already ruled that the argument isn’t a colorable defense," said Rubin.
She closed by explaining that the Supreme Court's decision in the immunity case is important but that it isn't something that will save him.
"Is it the linchpin to the efforts to hold Trump accountable for his varied and numerous alleged criminal acts? Not even close," she said.