Surprise! Trump Says He Still Has The King’s ‘X’!

 In a a new Motion to Dismiss aimed at the Supreme Court:

The motion further argues that the only permissible avenue for accountability for a President who takes illegal action within the scope of his duties is impeachment, and, because Trump was impeached and later acquitted by the United States Senate, he is now immune from criminal prosecution. Not only is this disputed by law, it is disputed by Trump's former Republican allies in the Senate.

IMHLO, the basic argument is that impeachment is not a legal process. It is constitutional, but stands outside the laws promulgated by Congress and adjudicated by Art. III judges. So no stare decisis, no double jeopardy.

Just for openers.

 The motion further argues that Presidents are immune from civil liability while in office, and therefore, this indictment is analogous. According to Trump's attorneys, all allegations in the indictment concern actions taken within the scope or within the perimeter of the office of the Presidency. This argument, however, is improper. Donald Trump's actions leading up to January 6, 2021 concerned overturning a free and fair election. While general election integrity falls within the scope of the federal government, Trump was not acting with the intent to protect the electoral system. Instead, Trump was taking specific actions with the intent to better his own Presidential aspirations as a candidate not as a sitting President.

Crimes are not acts within the course and scope of employment; see, e.g., the Federal district court’s denial of motions to remove in Georgia. I think we can accept that as “settled law.”

Expect the Special Counsel's office to make a similar distinction in their response, which will be due later this month. This motion to dismiss is expected to fail, but any such decision will eventually be appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court who will be tasked with deciding, for the very first time, whether a President is absolutely immune from criminal acts taken while in office and within the scope of his official duties. I would opine the answer will be no.

This is a matter of creating a record for appeal. But for all that, it’s still pretty damned weak. One expects better in such a case with a former POTUS in the dock.

Then again: ETTD. It’s like a law of the physical universe.

(I did try to read the motion, but the first sentence is: “The President sits at the heart of our government.” No, actually, that’s the Congress. And the President only administers the Federal government, subject to Congressional oversight and judicial review.

Well, you see why I couldn’t go on. Bad lawyers bluster; good analyze. This motion is all bluster, with a strong mix of humbug. If you want to read a more comprehensive analysis, emptywheel has a pretty good thread starting here. Here’s a good example of how the President “sits at the heart of our government”:

This implications of this passage are fairly breathtaking. Trump is saying Take Care clause extends his authority over those whose duties he has nothing to do with, including states and Congress. 

It would gut separation of powers.

Pretty damned much.)

Wouldn't just gut SoP, but Federalism as well. It's gibberish maybe a micrometer above your average SovCit "argument"...

You’re a better man than I am, Gungha Din. I am simply not reading that shit. Though I’m pretty sure your analysis is right, just based on the motion’s opening sentence.