Trump's Firing: Law-Breaking Or Justified?

Former US President Donald Trump has been involved in several controversies and legal cases, with some arguing that he has broken the law. One notable incident involves Trump pressuring Georgia's top election official, Brad Raffensperger, to find enough votes to overturn his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Legal experts suggest that Trump may have violated federal and state laws against election tampering and solicitation to commit election fraud. Trump's actions have also led to questions about presidential immunity and accountability.

Trump has faced criminal charges, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against citizens' rights, related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. He was also convicted of falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments. While some of his cases have been dismissed or granted immunity, the legal battles continue, and they have set a precedent regarding presidential accountability.

Did Trump break the law by pressuring Georgia election officials?

On January 2, 2021, then-President Donald Trump pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to overturn his loss to President-elect Joe Biden in the state. According to legal experts, Trump may have broken a U.S. federal law and a Georgia law against election tampering.

Georgia has a state law against "criminal solicitation to commit election fraud," which makes it illegal for a person to intentionally solicit or attempt to cause another person to engage in election fraud. A separate federal law makes it illegal to attempt to "deprive or defraud" people of a "fair and impartially conducted election process."

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in California, called the phone call a "flagrant federal criminal violation," adding that Trump appeared to be using threats to push Raffensperger to alter a legitimate vote count. Duke University School of Law professor Lisa Kern Griffin, a former federal prosecutor, agreed, stating that it is "hard to interpret the president's threatening call demanding that election officials 'find' votes for him otherwise."

However, some have outlined a potential legal defense for Trump, and it is predicted that a prosecution of him arising from the telephone call is unlikely. Criminal laws generally require a guilty state of mind or a deliberate intent to carry out a crime. Trump would likely argue that he genuinely believed the election was rigged against him and that he was simply offering his views on the election, not making a demand.

In addition to potential legal violations, Trump's actions also sparked ethical concerns. Bob Bauer, a senior Biden adviser, called the incident a "disgraceful story about Donald Trump's assault on American democracy."

As of December 2024, Trump's lawyers have moved to dismiss the Georgia election interference case, arguing that a sitting president is immune from indictment or any criminal process, state or federal. The case has been stalled for most of the year due to challenges regarding the prosecution.

Trump's immunity from prosecution

In July 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump has partial immunity from prosecution for official acts carried out while in office. The ruling set a precedent for immunity from criminal charges for former presidents.

The ruling came about after Trump was indicted on four charges related to his actions after the 2020 election. The Supreme Court's decision stated that a former president has criminal immunity for some official actions taken while in office. Chief Justice John Roberts clarified that there is "no immunity for unofficial acts".

The decision was not unanimous, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. Justice Sotomayor wrote:

> "The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

Despite Trump's partial immunity, he is still facing four criminal cases. These include:

• Allegations that he illegally conspired to overturn the 2020 election result.
• A payment made to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election to keep quiet about her claim that she had sex with Trump, which he denies.
• Criminally conspiring to overturn his narrow defeat in Georgia in the 2020 election.
• Mishandling classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after he left office.

Trump's criminal cases

As of January 2025, former US President Donald Trump is facing four criminal cases. Trump is the first former president in US history to be criminally convicted. Here is a summary of the four cases:

The Stormy Daniels hush money case

In March 2023, Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 hush-money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Daniels claimed she had an affair with Trump, which he denied. The Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of all 34 counts in May 2024. In January 2025, Trump avoided jail time and was given an unconditional discharge by Judge Juan Merchan, meaning he will have no fines or probation but will have a criminal record.

Conspiring to overturn the 2020 election result

Federal prosecutors allege that Trump pressured officials to reverse the results of the 2020 election, spread lies about election fraud, and sought to exploit the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, to delay the certification of Joe Biden's victory. Trump has been charged with four criminal counts, including conspiracy to defraud the US and conspiracy against citizens' rights. The US Supreme Court ruled that Trump has partial immunity in this case, stating that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

Georgia election investigation

Trump and 18 other defendants are accused of criminally conspiring to overturn his narrow defeat in Georgia in the 2020 election. The racketeering investigation, led by Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis, was sparked by a leaked phone call in which Trump asked Georgia's top election official to "find 11,780 votes". Trump was initially hit with 13 criminal counts, which were later reduced to 10, including one violation of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The case has been complicated by an effort to disqualify Willis due to her romantic relationship with a man she hired to work on the case.

Mishandling of classified documents

This case concerns Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents by taking them from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence after leaving office. The majority of the counts are for the wilful retention of national defence information under the Espionage Act. There are also eight individual counts, including conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record, and making false statements. The case was dismissed by a Florida judge in July 2024, but the decision was appealed by special prosecutor Jack Smith. The case now faces an uncertain future after the Supreme Court's immunity decision.

Trump's violation of the Impoundment Control Act

In 2024, a nonpartisan public auditor, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), reported that President Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act by unilaterally withholding $214 million of legislatively appropriated Defense Department aid for Ukraine without obtaining authorization from Congress. The Impoundment Control Act, passed in 1974, requires the president to report to Congress whenever he wishes to hold up or not spend money that has been approved by Congress.

The Act applies when the president wishes to hold back on spending temporarily (a deferral) or cancel spending permanently (a rescission). In both cases, the law requires the president to notify Congress promptly of what he wants to do and why. For rescissions, the president must spend the money unless Congress approves his request not to. For deferrals, the president is given more leeway, as long as he spends the money during the current fiscal year. Even then, deferrals are only allowed to provide for contingencies, due to changes in the law, or to achieve greater efficiency.

In the case of Trump's withholding of funds from Ukraine, no special message was sent to Congress, and no explanation was offered. Trump disputed the GAO's conclusion, saying that he acted lawfully under his authority to carry out American foreign policy. However, evidence suggests that his claims were pretextual, and he never mentioned "corruption in Ukraine" or "European nations contributing their fair share of aid" during phone calls with Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump's potential defence

It is unclear which specific incident of Trump firing a man the user is referring to, as there are several instances of Trump being accused of breaking the law. However, assuming the user is referring to the incident where Trump pressured Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to overturn his loss to Joe Biden in Georgia, here are some potential defences that Trump could use:

• Trump could argue that he was simply expressing his genuine views on the election and was not making a demand or attempting to interfere with the election.
• He could claim that he sincerely believed there were legitimate Trump votes that had not been counted and, therefore, he was not "willfully and knowingly" trying to interfere with the election.
• Trump could argue that he did not have the necessary guilty state of mind or deliberate intent to carry out a crime, which is generally required for criminal prosecution.
• He could also attempt to pardon himself, although it is unclear whether a president can legally issue a self-pardon, and such a pardon would only apply to federal crimes, not state crimes.
• Trump could also argue that he was acting lawfully under his authority to carry out American foreign policy, as he did when accused of violating the Impoundment Control Act by withholding aid to Ukraine.

Frequently asked questions