Search

The article discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States, which granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution, a concept previously unheard of. The decision has far-reaching implications, potentially allowing the president to commit crimes without consequences. The article highlights the dangers of unchecked presidential power and calls for legal professionals to take action to uphold the rule of law in the face of this controversial ruling. [Extracted from the article]

The article explores whether former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken during their presidencies. It also discusses the separation of powers principle and historical precedents to argue against the claim of absolute immunity, emphasizing the necessity of upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability for alleged violations of federal criminal law.

The article explores whether former presidents, particularly Donald Trump, are immune from criminal prosecution for official acts during their presidencies. It also discusses legal arguments and historical precedents supporting absolute immunity, emphasizing the constitutional framework, separation of powers, and the lack of historical precedent for prosecuting former presidents for official acts.

The article discusses the D.C. Circuit's ruling on presidential immunity, asserting that former presidents, including Donald Trump, are not immune from criminal prosecution. It also examines Trump's arguments for expansive immunity, citing legal precedent and historical evidence to reject his claims and affirm that former presidents can be held accountable for criminal acts committed during their tenure.

The article delves into the legal concept of presidential immunity, examining its historical precedent and its relevance to the prosecution of former President Donald Trump. It also discusses the various arguments surrounding presidential immunity, including its scope and applicability in criminal proceedings, as well as its intersection with principles of separation of powers and double jeopardy.

The US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, allowed for President-elect Donald Trump's sentencing in a hush money criminal case in New York to proceed. Despite Trump's claims of presidential immunity, the court ruled that the sentencing could go forward, with the judge planning to impose a sentence of "unconditional discharge" without prison time. Trump, who was found guilty of falsifying records, can still appeal in New York state courts, potentially leading to a final resolution in the US Supreme Court. [Extracted from the article]

Donald Trump has lost an appeal to delay his Jan. 10 sentencing in a hush money criminal case in New York. Despite the loss, Trump still has options to try to stop the proceedings as he prepares to become the 47th US president. The lower court judge overseeing the trial has indicated that Trump won't face jail time or probation, but Trump argues that upholding the verdict would violate presidential immunity. The appeals court judge expressed skepticism of Trump's arguments during a hearing, emphasizing that Trump's status as president-elect does not grant him immunity from prosecution. [Extracted from the article]

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Representative Matt Gaetz to be the attorney general, leading to Gaetz's resignation from Congress. Gaetz, a Florida Republican, has faced allegations of sexual misconduct and other scandals, but has denied any wrongdoing. Trump aims to transform the Justice Department under Gaetz's leadership, which has raised concerns among Senate Republicans who must confirm the nomination. The appointment of Gaetz as attorney general could test the traditional independence of the department from the White House, as seen in past administrations. [Extracted from the article]

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Matt Gaetz, a controversial lawmaker, to be the next attorney general. Gaetz, a loyal ally of Trump, faces scrutiny for past scandals, including allegations of a sexual relationship with a minor. The appointment will test Trump's influence over Senate Republicans, who must confirm the nomination. Gaetz's potential leadership of the Justice Department raises concerns about political interference in law enforcement. [Extracted from the article]

A federal judge has released the government's evidence in the 2020 election obstruction case against Donald Trump, despite objections from Trump and his attorneys. The evidence includes Trump's efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to intervene in certifying the election results. The case is being reviewed under a new immunity rubric after the US Supreme Court ruled that presidents are entitled to immunity for official acts. Trump is expected to file his response on the immunity issue by November 7. [Extracted from the article]

Former President Donald Trump has requested that a US judge in New York take over his state hush-money criminal case, arguing that a federal court is the appropriate venue to assess the merits of the conviction. Trump's request cites a recent Supreme Court ruling that grants him some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was president. Trump was convicted in May by a Manhattan state jury of falsifying business records to conceal a payment made to a porn star before the 2016 election. While the chances of success for this request are slim, Trump's lawyers argue that if the case is transferred and he regains the presidency, he could order the Justice Department to drop the prosecution, which he cannot do with state cases. [Extracted from the article]

Former President Donald Trump has requested an indefinite delay in his hush-money case sentencing in order to allow a US judge to consider moving the case to federal court. Trump's lawyers argue that if the case is moved to federal court, they will ask for his conviction to be overturned on the grounds of presidential immunity. The New York judge presiding over the case is expected to rule on Trump's immunity argument by September 16 and has set the sentencing for September 18 if the argument is rejected. This is the second attempt by Trump's lawyers to move the case to federal court. [Extracted from the article]

Former President Donald Trump has requested that a US judge in New York take over his state hush-money criminal case, arguing that a federal court is the appropriate venue to assess the merits of the conviction. Trump's request cites a July 1 Supreme Court ruling that grants him some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was president. He was convicted in May by a Manhattan state jury on 34 felony counts related to concealing a payment to a porn star before the 2016 election. The judge has scheduled sentencing for September 18 and will rule on Trump's immunity argument by September 16. [Extracted from the article]

The fundraiser is scheduled for Sept. 5—the same day Judge Tanya Chutkan will determine how to proceed with Trump's election subversion case following the Supreme Court's ruling that Trump has some presidential immunity from prosecution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A New York judge has rejected Donald Trump's third request for him to step down from overseeing the hush money criminal trial, calling the motion filled with "innuendo and mischaracterizations." The judge, Justice Juan Merchan, criticized Trump for including fresh complaints about a gag order in his recusal request, stating that it was an attempt to air grievances against the court's rulings. Trump argued that the judge had a conflict of interest due to his daughter's ownership of a digital marketing firm that worked on Vice President Kamala Harris' 2019 White House bid. The judge had previously rejected similar claims from Trump, and a Manhattan interim appeals court upheld those rulings. Trump is due to be sentenced on September 18 if his arguments about presidential immunity are also denied. [Extracted from the article]

A judge in the hush-money case involving former President Donald Trump will decide next week whether he will recuse himself from the case. Trump has requested the judge's recusal twice before, citing the judge's daughter's previous work for Vice President Kamala Harris. If the judge remains on the case, he will rule by September 16 on whether Trump has immunity from prosecution. The judge has stated that the sentencing date of September 18 will remain unchanged. [Extracted from the article]

President Joe Biden criticized a Supreme Court decision that could potentially allow former President Donald Trump to avoid prosecution for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. Biden's remarks were aimed at diverting attention from his own debate against Trump and focusing on Trump's behavior. The court's ruling was seen as a political and legal victory for Trump, as it limited the scope of potential prosecution and made it unlikely that he would face trial before the November election. Biden's campaign and Democrats seized on the issue to portray Trump as a threat to democracy and to contrast him with Biden. However, Biden still faces challenges in convincing voters of his own fitness to serve as president. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court's ruling that Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal prosecution is a significant victory for him, but it also benefits President Joe Biden. The decision virtually ends the possibility of Trump being tried for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election before November. It may also limit the scope of Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution. This ruling allows Biden to change the subject from his debate performance and highlight the importance of electing a president who is accountable to the federal courts. However, Biden still faces challenges, including doubts about his mental and cognitive health. The timing of the ruling allows Trump to campaign without worrying about the courts interfering. Trump's July 11 sentencing in the New York hush-money case is now more significant, as it will be the only criminal punishment he faces as he campaigns for the presidency. If Trump wins, he could dismiss federal cases against him or pardon himself if convicted. The ruling diminishes the likelihood of him being held legally liable for his actions, including the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. The court that decided Trump's immunity was shaped by him, and Biden's allies point out that he could further expand the conservative majority if reelected. [Extracted from the article]

The US Supreme Court is considering whether to extend Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution, which could potentially prevent a pre-election trial on charges of attempting to illegally stay in power. While the justices expressed skepticism towards Trump's arguments for immunity, Chief Justice John Roberts disagreed with part of an appeals court opinion and suggested sending the case back to lower courts for further examination. Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern about the long-term consequences of leaving presidents vulnerable to prosecution for their official acts. Special Counsel Jack Smith has a limited timeframe to bring Trump to trial before the November elections, with polls indicating that a conviction could harm Trump's chances of being the Republican nominee. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in April over whether Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution—and Trump wants his Stormy Daniels hush money trial to be paused until justices rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Supreme Court has announced that it will rule on whether former President Donald Trump can claim immunity from criminal prosecution. This decision will have significant implications for whether Trump will face trial for alleged interference in the 2020 election while campaigning for a return to the White House. The court's ruling will also determine whether Trump's trial in Washington will be delayed until after the November election. Arguments will be heard in late April, allowing for a potential ruling and trial before November. [Extracted from the article]

Former President Donald Trump is appealing a judge's ruling that denied him immunity against federal criminal charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The appeal seeks to end the case and potentially delay the trial date. The judge, Tanya Chutkan, rejected Trump's immunity bid, stating that being president does not grant him a lifelong immunity from prosecution. Trump's lawyers had already indicated they would appeal and may petition the US Supreme Court if necessary. The judge also denied Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment on other constitutional grounds. [Extracted from the article]

(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump boasted in 2016 that he was so popular he "could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." One of the three judges on the panel asked Trump's lawyer, William Consovoy, whether police could pursue the president if he'd shot someone. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan heard arguments Wednesday on Trump's bid to reverse a ruling by a lower-court judge who refused to block the subpoena. [Extracted from the article]