On Thursday, former President Donald Trump’s legal team urged U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to dismiss the charges against him concerning his actions in the 2020 election.

Their primary defense rests on the premise that Trump is shielded by presidential immunity and that his actions were well within the purview of his official duties.

The court documents show that Trump’s lawyers argue that the actions mentioned in the indictment, which includes making public announcements, liaising with the Justice Department, communicating with state lawmakers, members of Congress regarding election affairs, and the formation of elector slates, are all within his official capacities.

Breaking down their argument, the legal team stated, “Breaking 234 years of precedent, the incumbent administration has charged President Trump for acts that lie not just within the ‘outer perimeter,’ but at the heart of his official responsibilities as President.”

They further emphasized that the prosecution’s argument against Trump didn’t address the core question – whether Trump’s attempts to ensure electoral integrity and champion it were beyond the scope of his presidential duties.

Highlighting the unique nature of indicting a president, Trump’s lawyers emphasized that historically, any indictment could only be leveled post-impeachment and a subsequent conviction in the Senate.

They pointed out the crucial fact that Trump was “acquitted by the Senate for the same course of conduct.”

TRENDING: Lauren Boebert Announces Willingness to Drop ‘Motion to Vacate’ Rule Under One Condition

Furthermore, the lawyers warned of the significant implications if Trump’s immunity isn’t acknowledged.

They suggested that overlooking such a principle could pose a “chilling effect” on a sitting president’s decision-making capabilities.

Drawing from the annals of American history, they illustrated that numerous instances exist where the opposing party vociferously claimed that the President and his advisors were culpable of criminal actions in their official capacities.

Citing the infamous ‘corrupt bargain’ between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay as a case in point, they underscored that none of these allegations ever culminated in the criminal prosecution of the former President based on his execution of official responsibilities.

Earlier, Trump had petitioned for Judge Chutkan’s recusal, stemming from comments she made during the sentencing of two Jan. 6 defendants that implied Trump warranted prosecution and imprisonment.

However, Judge Chutkan, appointed during the Obama administration, declined his motion for recusal on Sept. 27.

RELATED: Former President Trump Mulls Capitol Hill Visit Amid GOP House Leadership Shift