Judge rules Trump protected by presidential immunity for claims doubting election while in officeTrump is not totally in the clear, as the judge ruled that statements he made after leaving the White House are not protected.
A Pennsylvania state judge ruled that President Donald Trump is protected by presidential immunity for the statements he made creating doubt about the 2020 election results while in office.
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Erdos ruled Monday that 2020 election worker James Savage is unable to sue Trump over the claims, according to The Hill.
Trump's immunity includes a tweet and other comments he made from the White House while a Pennsylvania state Senate committee met in November 2022, the judge also said.
"Other legal proceedings may examine the propriety of his statements and actions while he was the President and whether, as the plaintiffs in this and other cases contend, it was this conduct which served as the actual threat to our democracy," Erdos wrote in his ruling. "But this case is not the proper place to do so. Here, Trump is entitled to Presidential immunity."
Savage, a Pennsylvania voting machine supervisor, filed two lawsuits, which were later consolidated, alleging that Trump, attorney Rudy Giuliani, two poll watchers and others conspired to defame him. Savage alleged Trump damaged his reputation by falsely claiming he altered the 2020 election result, which led to him receiving death threats and having two heart attacks.
Trump is not totally in the clear. Erdos ruled that Savage's third defamation claim, related to remarks after Trump left the White House, is not protected by immunity, so the case survived Trump's motion to dismiss, according to Bloomberg.
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/judge-rules-trump-protected-presidential-immunity-claims-doubting-election
I think this is correct.
To be clear, this isn't a First Amendment case because the First Amendment doesn't protect defamatory statements. This is saying that even defamation can't overcome a President's immunity while in office regarding statements made relating to his duties. I think this same reasoning should apply to all the non-defamation claims being made against him relating to his public statements about the integrity of the election, including all the criminal ones. Bottom line is that I don't think saying "the election was fraudulent and I was robbed" is a crime, period.
I also think that in the end, the First Amendment will end up protecting Trump against statements regarding election fraud made even
after he left office, unless he made such specific allegations in those statements that they constituted defamation against an individual person, which apparently is what remains in this particular case.
