The former commander in chief wants absolute immunity while leading the free world, but legal experts aren't buying it.
This week, Donald Trump's lawyers formally filed documents asking Judge Chutkan to stay "all proceedings" in the federal case in Washington D.C. that alleges he attempted to subvert the 2020 election after losing to President Joe Biden.
Trump maintains that as president he must be free to serve without the panic of prosecution from political rivals in response to special counsel Jack Smith's filing, which asserted that the 45th president is "not above the law."
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
The Constitution may be “hazy” on some of its interpretations, Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Marymount University Law School, tells Salon, but is crystal clear when it comes to the president's exposure to the rule of law.
Levitt calls the immunity argument “charitably, complete nonsense."
He noted how the riotous siege on the Capital back on Jan. 6, 2021, was “encouraged” by Trump.
And he told Salon that as the president and leader of the federal executive branch, Trump “may have been engaged in sedition” and failed to do anything to effectively suppress insurrection.
Levitt explained that the actions of Trump after the 2020 presidential contest commenced are beyond the duties of the president.
“Nothing that Trump was doing in 2020 was derived from any power that Congress gave, and therefore not in furtherance of any lawful presidential power; when he was in court, he was in court as Donald J. Trump and not as the United States (to the extent he was involved in any court cases after 2020, they were all filed by his campaign team, not by the DOJ), and when he was on phone calls looking to ‘find’ votes or conspiring to send in fake electors, that was entirely as a candidate and not as the President, because the President has no role in reviewing state election returns or sending in a state’s choice of electors,” he said.
“The indictments have been exceedingly clear about basing the charges only on private behavior, and not on anything legitimately governmental.”
Moreover, District Judge Tanya Chutkan agreeing to Trump's immunity request would purportedly cause the case to go haywire and set dangerous precedent for future presidents.
"While US District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s gag order has gotten more attention, her granting Trump’s request for immunity would not only derail the case, but also elevate future presidents above the law," wrote Norman Eisen in a recent CNN Op-ed.
“Derail the case,” it would also “elevate future presidents above the law,” they argued.
But granting Trump’s request for immunity would not only “derail the case,” it would also “elevate future presidents above the law,” they argued.
The merits of Trump's ask are venturing into what trial attorney Bernard Alexander calls “uncharted territory."
“Trump's basic claim, boiled down to its essence, is that he was above the law because he heads the branch responsible for enforcing election law,” Alexander reportedly told the outlet. “Under that logic, a president seeking to thwart the will of the electorate would never be subject to prosecution for sedition or insurrection.
"There would be no accountability.”
