5 takeaways from Trump’s Supreme Court and New York hearings

The Supreme Court will hold a hearing Thursday on former President Trump’s broader claims of immunity from criminal prosecution while his trial in New York over his hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels continues. , collided on Thursday.

The Supreme Court case concerns President Trump’s charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, keeping classified information at the Florida resort Mar-a-Lago, and attempting to subvert. It could derail the schedule of three other trials. Georgia 2020 election results.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, the prosecutor in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases, has asked the Supreme Court to rule quickly on the immunity issue, but to no avail. Smith asked the court in December to quickly decide the issue, at a time when Trump’s trial was scheduled for March.

Instead, the justices allowed the process to proceed at normal speed, which was an advantage for Trump.

Less favorable for the former president is the New York case, where court reporters say he sometimes resents having to sit through replays of allegations of sordid personal conduct. It looked like he was doing something.

Key takeaways from the two lawsuits include:

Good day for Trump at the Supreme Court

Thursday’s more important Supreme Court hearing largely went to Trump.

The only downside for Trump was that the justices were skeptical of his team’s broadest argument: that presidents or former presidents enjoy virtually unlimited impunity for everything they do while in office. It seemed like something like that.

However, several of the court’s six conservative justices appear intent on distinguishing between “official” and “private” conduct, and have expressed a willingness to protect the president from prosecution for at least the former. It seemed like it was.

They grilled Justice Department attorney Michael Dreven on whether past presidents could be prosecuted for certain acts they committed while in office.

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether former President Franklin D. Roosevelt could have been prosecuted for violating the civil rights of Japanese Americans by interning them during World War II. “Today, yes,” Dreeben replied.

Justice Clarence Thomas posited a similar theory regarding Operation Mongoose, a covert CIA-led operation in the early 1960s to oust Fidel Castro’s Cuban government.

The general tenor of the conservatives’ argument drew tacit condemnation from their liberal colleagues.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, “Why doesn’t the president have to follow the law when conducting official acts?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor complained that the principle that no one is above the law “in public or private conduct” is “somewhat in doubt here.”

But with conservatives holding a 6-3 majority, Trump and his team are likely to have an advantage.

Time and delay are Trump’s friends.

There was another positive for President Trump during the Supreme Court hearing.

The conservative justices’ apparent willingness to emphasize the distinction between private and public conduct opens the door to further delays in the underlying trials on January 6-related charges.

Two of the three judges appointed by President Trump during his term, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, have ruled that further hearings will be held to rule on this distinction regarding the specific charges in the former president’s indictment. He suggested that it might be necessary.

President Trump wants to cancel as many trials as possible past Election Day.

If Trump wins a second term, he could order the Justice Department to drop the federal lawsuit against him.

Notably, he doesn’t have much authority over state cases such as New York’s hush money trial or Georgia’s election investigation.

But Trump’s lawyers made some surprising claims

Under questioning from Outside Mayor, Trump’s lawyers made some surprising claims.

Most strikingly, the president suggested he could enjoy impunity for killing his rival.

Sotomayor hypothesized that “the president decides that his rival is corrupt and orders the military or someone else to assassinate him.” She then asked, “Is that immunity within the scope of his official conduct?”

“It depends on the hypothesis,” Sauer responded, before adding, “There’s a good chance it was an official act.”

The proposal caused an immediate uproar on social media and drew immediate criticism from some quarters.

“I hope you understand what the Trump team is arguing for here,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York wrote on social media. “Take it seriously at face value. This is not a game.”

Clashes with Trump rally in New York

A legal battle continues in New York over whether President Trump violated a gag order in social media posts attacking various opponents.

Prosecutors say the former president violated the gag order 10 times and are asking the court to impose a $1,000 fine on each count. Trump’s team argued that he was simply reacting to others’ claims.

Judge Juan Melchan has scheduled another court date on the matter for Wednesday, when the case is normally closed for trial proceedings.

Complicating matters, President Trump has scheduled rallies in Wisconsin and Michigan that day.

This is the most direct example yet of how the lawsuit intersects with President Trump’s efforts to take back the White House.

Unusual warmth towards harmful witnesses

The first week of the actual court proceedings in New York was led by former magazine executive David Pecker.

Mr. Pecker outlined how his former publisher, the National Enquirer tabloid, was purchased with the intent of killing stories that might have been damaging to Mr. Trump.

There seemed little doubt that Mr. Pecker’s evidence helped the prosecution more than the defense, with Mr. Pecker saying he considered Mr. Trump a “mentor” and the former president returning the favor. It felt a little strange to hear that.

Mr. Trump, who is easily angered, called Mr. Pecker a “good guy,” leaving some observers perplexed.