The Daily Fuckup

Donald Trump’s lawyers went on offense in the federal election-interference case on Oct. 5, 2023, asking a judge in Washington to toss the indictment on presidential-immunity grounds. The filing did not claim victory on the facts. It tried to move the fight to a threshold question: whether conduct prosecutors say occurred while Trump was in office can be treated as immune because it was tied to official presidential duties. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-01/23-624_u.s_v._trump_pet.pdf?utm_source=openai))

The motion leaned on the idea that some presidential conduct sits within the “outer perimeter” of office, a phrase pulled from immunity doctrine and repurposed here as a shield against criminal charges. That is the defense’s theory, not settled law. Prosecutors have argued that the case concerns an abuse of presidential power, not routine executive action, and they have said the Constitution does not give a former president a blanket pass for alleged crimes committed while holding office. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-01/23-624_u.s_v._trump_pet.pdf?utm_source=openai))

The immediate legal goal is obvious: delay the case, narrow it, or knock it out before trial. The broader gamble is bigger. If the court accepts the defense’s premise, it would push the legal system toward treating a former president’s official acts as a potential firewall against prosecution. That would be a major expansion of immunity law, and one that prosecutors are already rejecting as unsupported by the Constitution, history, and precedent. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-06/united_states_v._trump_final.pdf?utm_source=openai))

Politically, the filing gives Trump another way to frame the case as a fight over presidential power rather than alleged election subversion. Legally, though, the motion underscores how much of the defense now depends on persuading a court that the presidency itself should blunt criminal exposure for actions taken in office. That is the argument in black and white. Whether it survives judicial scrutiny is another matter. ([justice.gov](https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-01/23-624_u.s_v._trump_pet.pdf?utm_source=openai))