Despite Donald Trump’s impending return to the presidency, the $454 million civil fraud judgment against him and his sons will remain in effect. New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office firmly rejected a request to drop the case, emphasizing that presidential immunity does not extend to civil litigation. The judgment, stemming from allegations of fraudulent financial statements, totals $490 million with interest. James intends to continue defending the judgment as Trump’s appeal proceeds.
Read More
Manhattan prosecutors are opposing Donald Trump’s motion to vacate his felony conviction for falsifying business records. They argue that the recently expanded presidential immunity does not necessitate dismissing the case, suggesting alternative solutions like non-carceral punishment or delaying sentencing until after his presidential term. Prosecutors contend that there’s no legal basis for dismissal, emphasizing the jury’s guilty verdict. Trump’s legal team’s attempts to overturn the conviction are deemed baseless by the prosecution.
Read More
Following Donald Trump’s reelection, both the Manhattan District Attorney and the New York Attorney General affirmed their intent to proceed with their respective cases against him. The DA argued that Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records does not warrant dismissal due to his presidency, proposing alternative sentencing options such as delaying sentencing or imposing no jail time. The Attorney General rejected Trump’s request to dismiss the $454 million civil fraud judgment, stating that presidential immunity does not apply to such cases involving unofficial conduct. Both legal battles are expected to continue throughout Trump’s term.
Read More
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed an 82-page motion opposing Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss his hush-money case before his January 20 inauguration. Bragg argues that Trump’s “history of malicious conduct,” including threats and attacks on the judicial process, precludes dismissal and that “president-elect immunity” does not exist. The motion emphasizes the seriousness of Trump’s crimes, which involved falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money payment made shortly before the 2016 election, and their impact on the integrity of the electoral process. Bragg requests either pre-inauguration sentencing or a postponement until after Trump’s second term.
Read More
President-elect Trump’s upcoming inauguration raises unprecedented constitutional questions regarding his potential prosecution for state crimes while in office. Georgia Governor Kemp, who has a contentious history with Trump, cannot pardon him for state charges due to Georgia law requiring a guilty verdict, a five-year waiting period, and substantial evidence of injustice. While federal prosecution of a sitting president is generally considered impermissible, state-level prosecutions present a novel legal challenge, potentially impacting both the Georgia and Manhattan cases against Trump. The legal battles surrounding these cases, including challenges to the Georgia prosecutor’s conduct, are ongoing and may be further complicated by Trump’s re-election.
Read More
Attorney General Merrick Garland’s delayed appointment of a special counsel in the January 6th case remains questionable, potentially impacting the timing and outcome of investigations. Trump’s legal victories, including favorable judicial assignments and Supreme Court rulings, highlight his remarkable luck and the strategic timing of key legal decisions. These rulings significantly bolster Trump’s legal position, potentially leading to dismissals of criminal charges and favorable civil case outcomes. The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity further empowers Trump, suggesting a significant impact on future presidential actions.
Read More
Special Counsel Jack Smith moved to dismiss all federal charges against President-elect Donald Trump concerning classified document mishandling and election interference. These dismissals stem from the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president, a policy invoked previously during Trump’s first term and now applicable due to his re-election. While the government maintained the merits of its cases, the policy’s application necessitated the dismissal. This decision, following Supreme Court rulings bolstering presidential immunity, marks a significant moment, leaving the pursuit of accountability for these alleged actions to Congress via impeachment.
Read More
Special Counsel Jack Smith dropped all federal charges against President-elect Donald Trump regarding mishandling classified documents and attempts to overturn the 2020 election. This decision, citing the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy against indicting a sitting president, comes despite the gravity of the alleged crimes. Conservative judicial rulings, including a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, significantly impacted the case’s dismissal. The DOJ’s policy, established during Watergate, prioritizes a president’s ability to perform their duties unimpeded by legal proceedings, ultimately preventing further prosecution. Smith’s team plans to resign before Trump’s inauguration.
Read More
Following a Manhattan jury’s May conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, President-elect Trump’s sentencing has been indefinitely postponed. His legal team’s motion to dismiss the hush-money case, arguing for presidential immunity, is currently under consideration by the judge. This postponement cancels the previously scheduled sentencing and allows the defense to pursue dismissal. The case, stemming from payments made to Stormy Daniels, is now stalled pending the outcome of the dismissal motion.
Read More
Manhattan prosecutors oppose dismissing President-elect Trump’s hush money conviction, but suggest delaying sentencing until after his second term to balance constitutional interests. While acknowledging the unique legal questions raised by his presidency, they maintain the conviction’s validity. Trump’s legal team, however, claims this is a victory and seeks a complete dismissal, citing the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity. The judge will ultimately decide whether to dismiss the case, delay it, or proceed with sentencing.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker