President Donald Trump is seeking absolute immunity from a slate of Jan. 6 lawsuits poised to proceed in the courts. According to a report from the Washington Examiner, Trump’s lawyers filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, asking a judge to reverse a February ruling that allowed the lawsuits to continue.
Washington Examiner noted that Trump’s lawyers wrote in their brief: “President Trump is shielded by absolute presidential immunity because his statements were on matters of public concern. No amount of hyperbole about the violence of January 6, 2021, provides a basis for this Court to carve out an exception to the constitutional separation of powers.”
Trump has previously shredded the endless political witch hunts surrounding the “insurrection” that took place at the U.S. Capitol in 2021. He has repeatedly asserted that the investigations surrounding Jan. 6 are a distraction from the real issue: election integrity.
“Everyone must remember, this is all about massive Election Fraud which took place and which the Unselect Committee refuses to discuss,” Trump stated in July.
Further, the 45th president ripped the Department of Justice for politically persecuting conservatives after the DOJ announced Tuesday that they had opened a criminal investigation against him. RSBN reported that the investigation would look at President Trump’s actions following the 2020 presidential election.
“People forget, this is all about a Rigged and Stolen Election,” Trump reminded Americans on Truth Social.
The Washington Examiner reported that Trump’s attorneys argued the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives had already tried and failed to impeach Trump for “inciting” an insurrection in January 2021. “These further lawsuits are an attempt to thwart that acquittal, and it is just this type of harassment that presidential immunity is meant to foreclose,” the brief stated.
“Although President Trump argues he does not need to point to a specific clause in the Constitution, the Take Care Clause is one provision on which he could rely,” the brief continued. “The district court’s very narrow interpretation of the Take Care Clause has no basis in law or history.”