Donald Trump secures partial victory in Supreme Court amid ongoing hush money case | US News

April 25, 2024 TruthUSA

Donald Trump achieved a partial victory in the Supreme Court today, with justices postponing any decision on his immunity case related to the election riots.

Trump asserted his complete immunity over the 2020 riots, but while the Supreme Court justices were not fully persuaded, they did suggest he may have some level of immunity. They decided to delay any potential ruling on this matter until June.

If they ultimately determine that the former president does possess a level of immunity, it could refer the issue back to lower courts to determine the specifics, potentially pushing any decision beyond the November election.

On Thursday, Trump, who made history as the first former US leader to face a criminal trial, was also embroiled in two other separate legal battles. These include:

• His hush money trial in New York, where he is accused of falsifying business records for allegedly paying money to porn actress Stormy Daniels to conceal an affair.

• His defamation case brought by writer E Jean Carroll – a judge rejected Trump’s attempt to dismiss the verdict against him, leaving him facing an $83.3m (£66.5m) payout.

Additionally, Trump faced legal troubles as his former lawyers and associates were indicted in a 2020 election-related scheme in Arizona on Wednesday.

Follow latest: Trump’s hush money and Supreme Court trials
Analysis: Trump has won a qualified victory at the Supreme Court

Supreme Court

During the court proceedings, justices seemed inclined to reject Trump’s claims of total immunity but postponed a decision to determine the specific immunity he may or may not hold.

Trump, aged 77, even requested to skip his New York criminal proceedings to attend the Supreme Court’s special sessions.

In Washington, the special counsel’s lawyer informed the court that the nature of the immunity Trump was seeking had never been clearly defined before.

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concerns that if presidents lacked immunity, the country would rely on “good faith” to prevent abusive prosecutions against them.

He told the special counsel’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben: “Now you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment.

“And reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases – I’m not suggesting here [Smith’s indictment of Trump].”

The Supreme Court is expected to release its opinions by the end of June regarding whether Trump has immunity or not.

Given that five justices seemed inclined to reject Trump’s claims of absolute immunity, some suggested that the former president may still possess some level of immunity.

If the final ruling reflects this, lower courts may have to determine the specifics, potentially prolonging any decision beyond the November election.

Hush money

Meanwhile, in New York, Trump was once again present in Manhattan’s criminal court, accused of falsifying business records.

Earlier this week, the court heard from AMI, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, about an alleged “catch and kill” scheme, which was said to have been used to get rid of negative stories about Trump.

David Pecker, boss of AMI who signed a no-prosecution deal to testify, described shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy up rights to potentially damaging stories.

The National Enquirer, the court heard, bought up a sordid story from a New York City doorman as well as accusations of an extramarital affair with a former Playboy model to stop the claims getting out.

But Mr Pecker reached his breaking point with Stormy Daniels – a porn actress who was allegedly paid by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, to keep quiet over her claims of a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. Something he denies.

Mr Pecker told jurors his publication had been contacted by Ms Daniels’s representatives who said they could buy her story for $120,000 (£96,000) if it decided right away.

However, the publishing boss refused to. He told Mr Cohen: “I am not paying for this story. I didn’t want to be involved in this from the beginning.”

After that, a cross-examination of Mr Pecker began, with one of Trump’s lawyers, Emil Bove, taking centre stage.

Gag order

Looming over Thursday’s hush money proceedings were allegations that Trump once again violated a gag order.

The order prohibited Trump from making public statements regarding jurors, potential witnesses, and other individuals involved in the case.

Judge Juan Merchan was contemplating whether to hold Trump in contempt and impose fines for what prosecutors claimed were 10 separate violations of the order.

However, on Thursday, the prosecution raised additional instances of alleged breaches, including remarks about Mr Cohen and a comment by Trump about the jury being “95% Democrats,” among other things.

Despite the threat of potential penalties, Trump appeared unconcerned about having to pay up when speaking outside court, stating he had “no idea” if he would face fines.

E Jean Carroll

While the Supreme Court ruling partially favored Trump, a judge rejected his attempt to dismiss a defamation verdict against him.

Writer E Jean Carroll accused Trump of defaming her after she alleged he raped her decades ago.

The court mandated Trump to pay $83.3m in damages, and on Thursday, US district judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Trump was not entitled to a new trial or judgment, thus requiring him to comply with the payment.

Source link