By The opinion
A federal judge rejected the former president’s argument on Friday donald trump that he has presidential immunity in his federal criminal case for interference in the 2020 electionwhile denying his other constitutional defenses.
Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan refused to dismiss charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith against Trump, saying he does not have absolute immunity for what he said and did after the election.
“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free pass. “Former presidents do not enjoy special conditions of federal criminal liability,” District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in the 48-page ruling.
“The defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction and punishment for any criminal act committed while in office,” he added.
Trump asserted presidential immunity in his defense in October, arguing that all of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol are protected by that immunity.
The former president faces four felony charges in the case and the office of the special prosecutor of the Department of Justice, Jack Smith, said that he participated in a conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruct the certification of votes that Congress was carrying out, as well as a conspiracy “against the right to vote since the vote is counted.”
Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges in August.
“Nothing in the text of the Constitution or in the assignment of governmental powers requires exempting former presidents from that solemn process,” Chutkan ruled. And neither the People who adopted the Constitution nor those who have safeguarded it throughout generations have understood that this was the case.”
“The defendant’s four years of service as Commander in Chief did not grant him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal responsibility that governs his fellow citizens,” he added in his decision.
Trump also addressed his second impeachment trial in Congress, noting that the Senate failed to remove him from office after his efforts to resist the peaceful transfer of power were brought before the upper house.
He maintained that his acquittal in the Senate meant he could not be prosecuted in the case.
But Chutkan, an Obama appointee, also rejected that argument. “But neither traditional double jeopardy principles nor the Challenge Sentencing Clause establish that a prosecution subsequent to the acquittal of the indictment violates double jeopardy,” Chutkan wrote.
He also dismissed Trump’s argument that the prosecution violated his due process rights and that the alleged conduct was protected by the First Amendment and that the prosecution criminalized his core political speech.
“But it is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime, and, consequently, the Indictment—which accuses the defendant, among other things, of making statements in support of a crime—does not violate the rights of the defendant’s First Amendment,” Chutkan wrote.
Keep reading:
– Trump is indicted on criminal charges for his interference in the 2020 elections
– What is known about the six co-conspirators cited in the indictment against Trump for interference in the 2020 elections
– Prosecutor Jack Smith: Trump is not entitled to immunity in the case of the 2020 elections