The final criminal case related to Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results has been dismissed five years after the fact, meaning Trump will face no criminal trial. The dismissal of Georgia’s racketeering case, combined with the abandonment of federal election-interference charges due to presidential immunity, has effectively closed all avenues for holding Trump criminally liable. These decisions were made despite detailed allegations and strong evidence of wrongdoing, leading to questions about accountability and the limits of the legal system. This outcome leaves voters to determine consequences, while also raising questions about the precedent set by these dismissals.
Read More
The federal appeals court upheld the $83 million defamation verdict against Donald Trump, rejecting his appeal. The court found that Trump failed to demonstrate grounds for reconsidering the previous holding on presidential immunity and that the district court’s rulings were appropriate. The appeals court also concluded that the jury’s damages awards were fair, and the punitive damages award was appropriate due to the reprehensibility of Trump’s conduct. This ruling leaves Trump responsible for the full amount of the judgment, which has increased since the initial verdict.
Read More
The article highlights the irony of Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed opponent of “wokeness,” benefiting from a system that seems lenient towards his alleged crimes. Trump’s 34 felony counts indicate a pattern of behavior, yet he has faced minimal accountability due to judicial leniency. Moreover, Trump’s actions, such as the Qatar aircraft deal and golf resort agreement, raise concerns about violations of the foreign emoluments clause. This situation is further exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, which shields Trump from prosecution related to his official actions.
Read More
A YouGov survey reveals shifting Republican opinions on presidential immunity and fair trials, with fewer now believing presidents should be immune from prosecution (35% vs. 49% in November) and a decreased belief in fair trials for wealthy defendants. While most Americans believe ordinary and wealthy defendants are likely to receive fair trials, fewer believe this applies to former presidents (56%). Despite Trump’s conviction, most Americans (83%) believe he will not serve prison time, and partisan divisions on his guilt and treatment within the justice system remain stark.
Read More
Senator Rubio erroneously asserted a dichotomy between the federal and judicial branches, claiming immunity from judicial oversight regarding foreign policy conduct and communication. This statement reveals a disregard for the tripartite system of government, specifically the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances. His position reflects a belief in executive dominance, mirroring the Trump administration’s apparent view of unchecked presidential authority. This disregard for judicial review is particularly concerning given the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on presidential immunity and the current administration’s actions.
Read More
Senator Rubio erroneously stated a two-branch government model, ignoring the legislative branch, and further asserted his noncompliance with judicial oversight of foreign policy decisions. This declaration reveals a disregard for the constitutional principle of separation of powers and checks and balances. Rubio’s position aligns with the Trump administration’s apparent belief in unchecked presidential authority, potentially emboldened by recent Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity. The resulting actions, such as deportations without due process, demonstrate a president operating outside the constraints of law.
Read More
Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan, arrested for allegedly obstructing ICE agents, is arguing for dismissal based on judicial immunity. Her motion cites the Supreme Court’s *Trump v. United States* ruling granting broad presidential immunity for official acts, arguing that a similar standard should apply to judges. The motion contends that prosecuting Dugan violates federalism and that her actions, even if construed as aiding the undocumented immigrant, fell within her authority to maintain courtroom control. The case has sparked intense political debate, with supporters portraying Dugan as a resistance hero and critics hoping for further actions against the judiciary.
Read More
The Supreme Court ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant illegally deported despite a withholding order, but the Trump administration refused, citing El Salvador’s jurisdiction. This defiance followed a lower court order and constitutes a blatant disregard for judicial authority. The administration’s actions, including barring AP reporters from the Oval Office, demonstrate a pattern of ignoring court orders. This situation highlights the president’s disregard for the law and raises serious concerns about the rule of law within the United States.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s July ruling affirmed the President’s unrestricted power to remove executive branch agency heads. This power, argued the administration, is crucial for effective executive branch management. The lower court’s intervention was deemed an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers. The filing emphasized the need to prevent lower courts from dictating presidential personnel decisions. This follows a previous Supreme Court decision granting broad presidential immunity.
Read More
President Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, citing its July 1, 2024 ruling granting presidents near-absolute immunity, after a lower court blocked his dismissal of special counsel Hampton Dellinger. The appeal hinges on the Supreme Court’s assertion of the president’s “unrestricted power” to remove executive officers. Acting Solicitor General Harris argued that preventing the president from exercising this power severely harms the executive branch and separation of powers. A lower court judge reinstated Dellinger, criticizing the White House for the disruption caused by the firing.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker