![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Trump-Jan-6-Bloomberg-scaled.jpg\")
<\/div>\nDonald Trump is not entitled to absolute presidential immunity against criminal charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, a federal judge ruled<\/a>, saying the office doesn\u2019t come with a \u201clifelong \u2018get-out-of-jail-free\u2019 pass.\u201d<\/p>\n US District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday rejected Trump\u2019s early efforts to get the federal indictment against him in Washington tossed out, including his contention that he could not be prosecuted over actions he took after the 2020 election while he was president.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s \u201cfour-year service as Commander in Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n Chutkan also denied Trump\u2019s separate motions to dismiss the case on the grounds that the charges are unconstitutional.<\/p>\n The judge\u2019s decision is expected to be swiftly appealed by Trump\u2019s legal team. His attorneys already have signaled that they would challenge a loss on the immunity issue, and believe that all of the criminal case proceedings should be paused until that issue is fully litigated, potentially up to the US Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement that the former president would challenge Chutkan\u2019s decision. He accused \u201cradical Democrats\u201d of trying to \u201cdestroy bedrock constitutional principles and set dangerous precedents that would cripple future presidential administrations and our country as a whole, in their desperate effort to interfere in the 2024 Presidential Election.\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Special Counsel John \u201cJack\u201d Smith\u2019s office declined to comment.<\/p>\n A trial in the federal election obstruction case against Trump is set to begin March 4. Trump\u2019s lawyers have pushed for longer timelines in the case and unsuccessfully argued to delay a trial until after the 2024 general election in November.<\/p>\n Chutkan\u2019s decision came hours after the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected Trump\u2019s effort to claim presidential immunity against civil claims seeking to hold him responsible for the violence at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.<\/p>\n No Civil Immunity<\/strong><\/p>\n The appeals court judges found that he wasn\u2019t entitled to the immunity at this stage because the civil lawsuits brought by Democrats in Congress and law enforcement officers alleged his conduct was part of his political campaign, and not his presidential duties. The US Supreme Court has held in the past that presidents can\u2019t be sued over official acts.<\/p>\n The DC Circuit panel said it wasn\u2019t ruling on the question of presidential immunity against criminal prosecution, only certain civil claims. But the decision offers a road map for Smith\u2019s office to defend Chutkan\u2019s decision once Trump appeals it to the same court.<\/p>\n The court said he could potentially revive the civil immunity fight later if he presented evidence that he was, in fact, carrying out official presidential duties.<\/p>\n Chutkan wrote that while she was rejecting Trump\u2019s claim of absolute immunity against prosecution, she wasn\u2019t ruling yet on arguments he might make that the alleged criminal acts were part of his official duties and could be entitled to immunity.<\/p>\n In the 48-page opinion, Chutkan held that the \u201ctext, structure, and history\u201d of the US Constitution doesn\u2019t permanently shield former presidents against \u201cinvestigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.\u201d The Constitution\u2019s 18th century drafters wanted the US chief executive to be \u201cwholly different from the unaccountable, almost omnipotent rulers of other nations at that time,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n No Free Pass<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cWhatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong \u2018get-out-of-jail-free\u2019 pass,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n The judge rebuffed other arguments Trump\u2019s lawyers raised, including that a president could only be criminally prosecuted if they were first convicted in a US Senate impeachment trial or that the threat of future prosecution could interfere with a sitting president\u2019s ability to carry out their duties.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the specter of subsequent prosecution encourages a sitting President to reconsider before deciding to act with criminal intent, that is a benefit, not a defect,\u201d Chutkan wrote.<\/p>\n Chutkan has yet to rule on Trump\u2019s motions to dismiss the indictment on claims that he\u2019s a victim of \u201cselective and vindictive prosecution\u201d by the Justice Department under his political rival President Joe Biden and that the charges are otherwise invalid.<\/p>\n In Friday\u2019s opinion, she rejected Trump\u2019s contention that the indictment violated the First Amendment since prosecutors alleged his speech and political activities were used \u201cas an instrument of a crime.\u201d Trump\u2019s acquittal in his 2021 Senate impeachment trial also didn\u2019t create a double jeopardy problem, she wrote.<\/p>\n And the judge concluded that the indictment didn\u2019t violate Trump\u2019s due process rights because he would have been on \u201cfair notice\u201d that his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6 attack might be illegal.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is also a long history of prosecutions for interfering with the outcome of elections,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n Topics<\/span> USA<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Was this article valuable?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2023\/12\/Trump-Jan-6-Bloomberg-580x387.jpg\")
<\/p>\n