Trump’s Lawyers Are As Bad At Law As He Is

Trump says he is entitled to total immunity because when he was committing his crimes he was doing it for us, not himself. pic.twitter.com/QnJXbo3Rs4

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) January 2, 2024

I really hope his lawyers make this argument to the D.C. Circuit next week. 

“The President had a duty to commit crimes because he truly believed he had been cheated and that he had a duty to the nation to keep himself in the Presidency by any means necessary for the good of the country. He must be granted immunity from prosecution because it’s not fair that he didn’t get away with it.”

It couldn’t do any worse than whatever argument they plan to make.

Have I mentioned before that the jails are full of people who insist on their innocence? Yeah, cooking up stories about how they should have been allowed to get away with it doesn’t really work…ever.

Exhibit A:

Three years ago today

The phone call: "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state."

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) January 3, 2024

See? He was the President. He was on the Presidential phone. And he was taking care that the laws be faithfully implemented “Because we won the state.” He was conducting the Presidential business of making sure he was re-elected by any means necessary. And if the President can’t do that, then how is he supposed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

Maybe Trump should just pay his lawyer to recite Otter’s speech at the disciplinary hearing. Why not, right?

Bobb: If the acts committed— alleged in this indictment are in the furtherance of his office— in accordance with his political office, he's immune from prosecution pic.twitter.com/bX7BgIM9rE

— Acyn (@Acyn) January 3, 2024

This is false, by the way. The Supreme Court has held a sitting President is immune from civil suits when actions complained of are within the outer perimeter of Presidential duties (so Trump was not immune for his libel of E. Jean Carroll.) The court has not ruled that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, in or out of office. There is absolutely no support for that position in law. Although, as it turns out, they do make that argument in their brief, citing the case of Nixon v Fitzgerald. Wrongly, as I said.

I know it’s out of order (I’m burying the lede), but this showed up long after I wrote this draft:

Just filed: Trump Reply Brief - DocumentCloud. Case is fully briefed and ready for argument in DC Circuit next TUESDAY. https://t.co/M0dggzA7nQ

— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) January 3, 2024

I will note they do make the “double jeopardy” argument that this language:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Does not mean what it clearly says. No, I don’t know how they get there. Moreover, I don’t care. I’m not going to take frivolous arguments seriously. Their argument is based on the idea that “the Impeachment Judgment Clause specifically shields a President from ‘Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment’ unless he is ‘the party convicted’ in trial before the Senate.” They actually cite the above-quoted clause as authority for that sentence.

It’s impossible to take such people seriously.*

*I should have pointed out their brief opens with a citation to a Thomas majority opinion on the legal doctrine of statutory interpretation, an argument directly contradicted by their interpretation of the Impeachment Judgment clause.

You can’t make this stuff up.