Search

A federal judge has blocked the release of special counsel Jack Smith's report on the investigation into Donald Trump, while a New York court denied Trump's request to delay his upcoming criminal sentencing for covering up hush money. The Justice Department was prevented from sharing the report pending further court consideration. Trump's lawyers have criticized the report as a political stunt and called for Smith's removal as special counsel. The legal proceedings are moving quickly as courts and prosecutors aim to conclude cases against Trump before Inauguration Day. [Extracted from the article]

President-elect Donald Trump is seeking to cancel his sentencing in a New York hush-money case, arguing that the trial judge wrongly scheduled it before his return to the White House. The judge has denied Trump's request to put the proceedings on hold, leading Trump's lawyers to appeal to a state court. Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, which he denies, and has characterized the case as politically motivated. The sentencing is set for this Friday, with the judge indicating it will likely result in an unconditional discharge rather than a prison term. [Extracted from the article]

The Georgia prosecutor, Fani Willis, has been disqualified from prosecuting Donald Trump for election interference due to a conflict of interest case. The court found that the conflict-of-interest case against Willis was stronger than the case she brought against Trump. The prosecution will now be reassigned, highlighting the political nature of the case and the desire to please fellow Democrats and Trump critics. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the deepening crisis in South Korea's martial-law chaos, with the imprisoned former defense minister attempting suicide, investigators seeking to arrest President Yoon Suk Yeol, and police attempting to raid the presidential office. North Korea criticized South Korea as a "fascist dictatorship" in response to the events. The situation has led to legal scrutiny, a second impeachment vote, and public protests calling for Yoon's removal, causing chaos and concern in the country. [Extracted from the article]

The article titled "What Matters More, the Law or Our Love of Liberty?" discusses the importance of unwritten customs and the rule of law in maintaining a functioning society. The author references Plato's writings, specifically "The Laws," which emphasizes the significance of unwritten customs as the foundation of a social framework. The article also quotes Judge Learned Hand, who argues that liberty resides in the hearts of individuals and cannot be preserved solely through laws or courts. The author concludes by suggesting that the downfall of a republic into dictatorship or authoritarian rule is not determined by debates over presidential immunity. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the debate over presidential immunity highlighted by the Supreme Court case Trump v. U.S., which examines the extent of immunity a president should have. Topics include the contrasting views of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor on presidential immunity, the historical perspective on executive power versus monarchical rule, and the broader implications for the balance of power in a republic.

The article discusses the recent superseding indictment of Donald Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith, highlighting the timing and content of the updated charges, which remain largely the same as previous allegations. Topics include the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, the lack of significant changes in the indictment, and the absence of certain claims from the original filing.

The article discusses the Supreme Court's oral argument on presidential immunity from prosecution, specifically in the case of former President Donald Trump. The court must find a balance between recognizing the unique duties of the presidency and holding presidents accountable for law-breaking. The article mentions the precedent set in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which granted a president "absolute immunity" from civil lawsuits for acts within their presidential duties, and questions whether this precedent also applies to criminal prosecution. The court's decision will have implications for future presidents and the separation of powers. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the issue of presidential immunity from criminal cases and suggests grounding it firmly in the Constitution. The author argues that a president should only be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office after being removed from office through a trial in the Senate. This would ensure that the charges are not trivial and would eliminate the possibility of a rogue state or local prosecutor targeting a political opponent. The author believes that such trials should take place in the U.S. Congress rather than in the hands of individual prosecutors. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the issue of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution and the need for the Supreme Court to establish a standard that respects both the presidency and the rule of law. The author argues that while civil immunity for presidents has been recognized, the principles underlying civil immunity should also apply to criminal liability. The article proposes that the boundaries of presidential immunity should be determined by the nexus between the act in question and the duties of the president, as well as the urgency of the circumstances. The author suggests that a fact-intensive determination is necessary and calls for clear guidance from the Supreme Court on how to measure executive immunity. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court has decided to hear former President Donald Trump's case regarding his claim of presidential immunity from prosecution for his actions on January 6, 2021. The lower court's ruling that no president is entitled to immunity from generally applicable criminal laws was seen as a threat to the separation of powers and the independence of the presidency. The Supreme Court will consider the extent to which a former president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure. The D.C. Circuit's decision raised concerns about potential constitutional crises and the chilling effect on future presidential decisions. The authors argue that the D.C. Circuit's dismissal of these concerns was misguided and that the Supreme Court's intervention is necessary to give the issue the careful consideration it deserves. [Extracted from the article]

A Washington federal appeals court has indicated that it will likely reject former President Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution in a case involving his alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election. Trump's legal defense has become intertwined with his presidential ambitions, as he seeks to portray himself as the victim of politically motivated prosecutions. While his approach has resonated with Republican supporters, legal experts argue that the case raises fundamental questions about the rule of law and the accountability of high officeholders. The court's decision could determine the timing and outcome of Trump's federal election-interference trial. [Extracted from the article]

Former President Donald Trump's claims of absolute immunity to avoid legal actions against him have been rejected in two separate legal decisions. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Trump's bid to dismiss a case related to election interference, stating that former presidents do not enjoy special conditions on their federal criminal liability. Additionally, a federal appeals-court panel ruled that civil lawsuits holding Trump accountable for the January 6th Capitol attack can proceed, as campaigning for re-election is not considered an official act of the presidency. Trump is facing multiple indictments at both state and federal levels. [Extracted from the article]