CNN
—
A turbulent day filled with often outlandish legal arguments and tabloid headlines could not obscure the danger to the country.
Evoking two urban legal spectacles that give equal billing to the deepest thoughts of George Washington and the former National Enquirer publisher known for creepy celebrity scandals and questionable UFO sightings. Only Donald Trump can do that.
The former president made headlines Thursday for media mogul David Pecker’s key testimony in his first criminal trial in New York. He was also the center of attention at a U.S. Supreme Court hearing, held in absentia, devoted to his bold assertion that the president should be a complete king. Something like immunity from prosecution.
Legal debates and references span two and a half centuries, and how the Founders envisioned the presidency in response to Trump’s alleged attempts to sway the 2016 and 2020 elections through fraudulent means. It dates back to
But while the evidence is a reminder of the past, the impact of both incidents will be felt in the future, given the November election, a possible second Trump administration, and their ability to shape the presidency itself for years to come. It’s weighing heavily on me.
At the U.S. Supreme Court, nine justices, three of whom were appointed by President Trump, weighed in on the would-be Republican nominee’s surprising claim that the president must have absolute immunity from prosecution. This argument seems to directly refute the Founders’ suspicions about the unaccountable power of the monarchy. The case stems from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of the former president for trying to overturn the 2020 election by falsely claiming he had won. And the case has important implications for how Trump will act if he wins a second term in November and believes he will not be charged with any crimes while in office.
playing cards After the hearing, he issued an ominous warning: “Very strong presidential privileges are essential, otherwise we would effectively no longer have a country.” Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to feel the same way when he contradicted Trump’s lawyers who warned that a president who lives in fear of prosecution for his actions while in office would be emasculated. . Jackson said that under these circumstances, the Oval Office could become a “hub for crime.”
Furthermore, she added: “You seem to be worried that the president is getting cold. I think if the president wasn’t cold, we would have the exact opposite and serious problem.”
Jury hears about ‘catch and kill’ plot
At Mr. Trump’s first criminal trial, held 330 miles away in New York, Mr. Pecker testified for hours, but the subject matter was more sordid. He discussed the “catch and kill” scheme that President Trump allegedly used to suppress negative stories about his personal life, and the adult film star that the then-Republican candidate didn’t want voters to know about before voting. talked about hush money. 2016 Election. Trump’s lawyers began cross-examining Pecker on Thursday afternoon and will continue Friday.
Prosecutors are treating the case as more than a simple case of falsifying business records, the crime for which Trump was charged. “This case is all about a criminal conspiracy and cover-up, an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the presidential election, and an illegal conspiracy against Donald Trump to cover up that illegal election fraud,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told jurors during opening proceedings. This concerns the measures taken by the government.” Statement in court Monday.
Trump’s supporters have a less lofty view of the matter, arguing that Trump is isolated because of who he is. They argue that the alleged corporate accounting fraud should never have been prosecuted, or at least not as a felony.
So far, the public is still unconvinced that they will ultimately be asked to reach a verdict on the entire legal drama in November, according to a new CNN poll. Only 44% of Americans said they were confident that the jury selected for the case would reach a fair verdict, while 56% were skeptical.
But other findings are concerning for Mr. Trump. Most voters who currently support President Trump against President Joe Biden in the 2024 election say they would continue to support him even if convicted, while 24% said they would continue to support him even if convicted. If it appears, they may reconsider their support. Don’t support Biden. The question does not ask about convictions from specific cases. Trump faces four criminal charges, all of which he has pleaded not guilty to. The hush money case may be the only case to go to trial before the election, but it remains unclear how an acquittal or conviction in either case would reshape the political environment.
The hush-money case and President Trump’s appeal raise questions about whether and how the former president should be tried for interfering with elections, a pillar of America’s democratic system. Trump, like other criminal defendants who often accuse the legal system of being unfair, enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But an underlying theme in both prosecutions is the idea that President Trump is putting his own ambitions ahead of the vital need to preserve such institutions. And as with additional election interference cases in Georgia and a federal case involving the hoarding of classified documents in Florida, the charges against Mr. It focuses on his consistent unwillingness to comply with constraints.
That is why this incident has such great political significance. If Trump were not the presumptive candidate with an even chance of regaining the presidency, these questions would be more academic and relate solely to past conduct. But the outcome of Mr. Trump’s pending lawsuits, and whether a trial begins, could help set the tone for the future of his presidency.
Emerging from a long day of testimony in New York, Trump addressed the Supreme Court appeal and warned that unless the presidency enjoys full immunity, it will remain merely a “ceremonial” position. . “That’s not what the founders had in mind,” he argued. But his thirst for a strongman presidency is in direct contradiction to the vision of Washington that he mentioned, along with one of the founders, Benjamin Franklin, who was named in oral argument. Trump’s lawyers argued that warnings about the dangers of political parties in Washington in his farewell speech should help prosecute him for election interference, but CNN’s Zachary B. Wolf As he reported, they may have been selective given the necessary context.
Washington will be puzzled by many things about the modern world, but the first president will quickly recognize the dangers the 45th president poses to democracy. In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, Washington wrote that it was possible to overcome “anarchy and confusion” and that “perhaps the United States, not dictated by power, I feel that I must return to public life to build a system of governance.” These are ambitious agitators who refuse to consider the interests of their homeland above their own ambitious views. ”
Many Democrats have criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to hear President Trump’s frivolous appeal aimed at avoiding a potentially damaging criminal trial and possible conviction before the 2024 election. I’m furious at the decision. His legal maneuvering may mean he won’t have to answer for his attempt to steal the 2020 election before the 2024 election is held.
But at the same time, President Trump is taking full advantage of the appellate privileges afforded to any defendant. In the process, he raises fundamental questions about presidential power and the U.S. constitutional settlement that, at some level, can only be decided by the Supreme Court, regardless of election calendar pressures.
George Conway, a conservative lawyer who has become a critic of Trump and is now a major donor to Biden, argued that the justices need to address the issue of presidential immunity before Trump’s new term begins. .
“Let’s assume on January 20, 2025, a man who wants to take revenge on his political opponents takes office in the White House and appoints an attorney general to prosecute people who have opposed the president in the past,” Conway told CNN Wolf. . Blitzer. “These are legitimate questions.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, made this point during Thursday’s hearing, saying, “While I’m not concerned about this case, criminal law will be used in the future to target political opponents based on accusations of motive.” I am concerned that this will happen.” . “We are writing rules that will stand the test of time.”
It’s always dangerous to guess what a Supreme Court justice will decide based on questions asked during oral argument. But the consensus among many legal experts on Thursday was that while Mr. Trump is likely to lose on his claim of blanket presidential immunity, the court will ensure that future presidents are not subject to politically motivated prosecutions. The idea was that there might be some clear areas of exemption. That could mean the case will return to lower courts for further litigation, which could delay the federal election trial by months well beyond the November election. This is because if Trump is elected president again, he could appoint an attorney general to end the prosecution and escape responsibility for his own actions related to the 2020 election. It’s important.
However, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump appointee, argued that not all of the former president’s actions after the 2020 election constitute official conduct that could qualify for immunity. A compromise was proposed to get David Sauer to agree. This increases the likelihood that prosecutors will draft a simplified indictment as a basis for moving the trial forward more quickly.
The very fact that the hearing was taking place amidst the intellectual debate surrounding Trump’s unprecedented claims was surreal.
The most head-spinning moment of oral argument came when Mr. Sauer was forced to acknowledge a logical extension of the former president’s position. “What happens if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked.
“If it’s an official act, then there has to be impeachment and conviction through Congress before any charges can be filed,” Sauer said. Kagan then asked whether Sauer believed such a coup was an “official act.”
“It’s very possible, as you described the hypothesis,” he replied.
“That’s certainly disgusting, isn’t it?” Kagan replied.
