Extract from ABC News
Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution in his election interference case in Washington, a federal judge has ruled, knocking down the Republican's bid to derail the case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Key points:
- A judge found there was no legal basis for concluding that US presidents cannot face criminal charges once they are no longer in office.
- The ruling is the first by a US court affirming that presidents can be charged with crimes like any other citizen
- Mr Trump's defence team argued the immunity US presidents enjoy from civil lawsuits should extend to criminal charges
In Washington on Friday, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan found there was no legal basis for concluding that US presidents could not face criminal charges once they were no longer in office.
Mr Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, can immediately appeal the ruling, which could delay the trial while an appeals court and potentially the Supreme Court weigh the issue. The trial is currently scheduled to begin in March.
The case is one of several civil and criminal challenges Mr Trump is facing ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
Judge Chutkan's ruling brings Mr Trump a step closer to facing a jury on charges that he plotted to interfere in the counting of votes and obstruct congress' certification of his election defeat to Democrat Joe Biden.
Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty and accused prosecutors of attempting to damage his campaign. The case is one of four criminal prosecutions Mr Trump faces as he seeks to retake the White House.
Mr Trump has other pending legal motions to dismiss the case based on claims that it violates his free speech rights and is legally flawed.
Because Mr Trump is the first current or former US president to face criminal charges, Judge Chutkan's ruling is the first by a US court affirming that presidents can be charged with crimes like any other citizen.
The US Justice Department has long had an internal policy not to indict a sitting president, but prosecutors say no such restrictions exist once a president leaves the White House.
Mr Trump's lawyers made a sweeping claim that Mr Trump is "absolutely immune" from charges arising from official actions he took as president, arguing that political opponents could use the threat of criminal prosecution to interfere with a president's responsibilities.
His defence team argued that the immunity US presidents enjoy from civil lawsuits should extend to criminal charges.
Prosecutors contended that Mr Trump's argument would essentially put the US president above the law, violating foundational principles of the US constitution.
US appeals court says Trump must face civil lawsuits over Capitol attack
A US appeals court ruled that Mr Trump must face civil lawsuits over his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by his supporters, rejecting the former president's claim that he is immune.
A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found on Friday that Mr Trump was acting "in his personal capacity as a presidential candidate" when he urged his supporters to march to the Capitol on the day of the riot. US presidents are immune from civil lawsuits only for official actions.
The ruling clears the way for Mr Trump to face lawsuits from US Capitol police officers and Democratic politicians seeking to hold Trump responsible for the violence by his supporters during the riot, which was an attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat.
The unanimous decision focused only on whether Mr Trump could be sued, and said nothing about the merits of the cases themselves.
Mr Trump has made a similar immunity argument in this case, too, arguing that his speech exhorting his followers to "fight like hell" against the certification of the election was related to a "matter of public concern" and fell within his official responsibilities.
A Trump spokesperson on Friday called the ruling "limited, narrow and procedural" and said Mr Trump was "acting on behalf of the American people" on the day of the attack.
While the appeals court ruling on Friday explicitly stated it was not weighing in on Mr Trump's possible criminal immunity, both cases involve Mr Trump's conduct before and during the Capitol riot.
In their lawsuit, Capitol Police officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby accused Mr Trump of being responsible for physical and emotional injuries they suffered as a result of the Capitol attack.
"Today's ruling makes clear that those who endanger our democracy and the lives of those sworn to defend it will be held to account," Patrick Malone, a lawyer for the officers, said in a statement.
Two lawsuits were filed by House Democrats, one by 10 representatives including Jerry Nadler and Maxine Waters, and the other by representative Eric Swalwell.
Reuters
No comments:
Post a Comment