Defending Trump in the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021: A federal appeals court ruling that action taken unofficially as office-seeker does not imply official act immunity

Her ruling comes the same day the federal appeals court in Washington ruled that lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers who have accused Trump of inciting the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, can move forward.

The criminal case should be dismissed because Trump is free from prosecution for what he did as president, despite being the front-runner for the Republican nomination, according to Trump’s legal team. They assert that actions outlined in the indictment cut to the core of Trump’s responsibilities as commander in chief.

The president does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities, according to the opinion by Judge Sri Srinivasan. And when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity from damages liability just because he happens to be the President.”

“He is acting as an officer-seeker, not an officer-holder, no less than are the persons running against him when they take precisely the same actions in their competing campaigns to attain the same office,” the opinion said.

Trump wants the president’s speech on vote fraud to be considered an official act of the president.

“When a sitting president running for re-election speaks in a campaign ad, that is usually on a matter of public concern. Yet he does so in an unofficial, private capacity as office-seeker, not an official capacity as office-holder,” the opinion said. action taken in an unofficial capacity cannot qualify as official act immunity.

The 2016 U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Donald Trump’s attempted undoing of the 2016 election is unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s decision amounts to a sharp rejection to challenges the Trump defense team had raised to the four-count indictment in advance of a trial expected to center on the Republican’s multi-pronged efforts to undo the election won by Democrat Joe Biden.

It was Trump’s attempt to overturn the election at the US Supreme Court that may have doomed his case. The DC Circuit says he acknowledged that his post-election efforts to have the result reversed in his favor were done in a personal capacity, and not that of a sitting president. Those claims show that Trump requested the court’s intervention based on his unique and substantial interests as a candidate.

“Against the weight of that history, Defendant argues in essence that because no other former Presidents have been criminally prosecuted, it would be unconstitutional to start now,” Chutkan wrote. “But while a former President’s prosecution is unprecedented, so too are the allegations that a President committed the crimes with which Defendant is charged.”

“Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements … but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process,” she wrote.

The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens,” prosecutors wrote in court papers.

Smith accused Trump of illegally storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House. In Georgia, Trump is accused of conspiring to change the result of the election. He is in New York facing charges related to payments made during the 2016 campaign.

The Supreme Court ruled that a campaign for re-election is not an official act of the office of a first-term President

A ruling handed down today says that a campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act when a first-term President seeks a second term.

“We answer no,” the court says, “at least at this stage of the proceedings,” adding that “campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office.”

The US Justice Department concluded in March that President Trump could be sued over the attack, despite the fact that he is afforded great protection with regard to a vast realm of speech.