Former President Donald Trump's new bid to have the federal election interference case against him thrown out on the grounds of "presidential immunity" is doomed to failure, former Eastern Michigan University law professor Gregg Barak explained in an analysis for Salon.
Trump's core argument is that his efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election were official actions performed in the course of his duties, and therefore not a matter for criminal litigation.
But there's a very simple reason that excuse doesn't work, argued Barak.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
"In trying to characterize the conduct of the charges against Trump as simply carrying out the normal business of the president, they are of course ignoring the fact that Trump had successfully and unsuccessfully enlisted other people to conspire in illegal acts to overturn the 2020 election," wrote Barak.
He went on to quote former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance, who wrote on the matter, "No matter how Trump’s lawyers try to dress it up and normalize it, it’s criminal conduct. Sure, Trump can have conversations with people, but when they’re about trying to change the results of an election he’s lost, they cross the line and are no longer within the official governing duties of a president, not even within the outer edges of its periphery."
Trump's presidential immunity claim is the latest in a number of legal moves made by himself and people who have been charged alongside him in various criminal cases, like the concurrent election racketeering case in Georgia, to try to throw out, delay, or tilt the proceedings in their favor.
Most recently, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark both lost motions to have their Georgia charges removed to federal court, with a judge rejecting the idea that their actions were official duties.
