Reuters Legal’s Post

The U.S. Supreme Court during its last term handed Donald Trump victories in three major cases. But those may not be the last of the former president's legal entanglements that the court is asked to decide. Seven important cases featuring Trump as the defendant are currently in the lower courts — two involving federal criminal charges, two state criminal prosecutions and three civil lawsuits. These eventually could be appealed to the Supreme Court, though it is not likely to hear any of them during its new nine-month term that began Oct. 7. And this does not count the potential for litigation over voting results in the Nov. 5 U.S. election. Trump is the Republican candidate facing Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, with the winner becoming president on Jan. 20. The fate of at least two of the cases with Trump as a defendant could hinge on the election's outcome. Read more: https://lnkd.in/gv8WUY2k #trump #legal #scotus

Supreme Court conservative justices lean towards giving presidents some immunity in Trump's case. Trump argues for immunity from prosecution related to actions during his presidency. Justices question the extent of immunity, showing concern about potential abuse of prosecutions. The ruling may narrow charges against Trump but could delay the trial further. Trump, seeking re-election, faces multiple legal battles, including charges related to the 2020 election and the January 6 Capitol riot. The decision is expected by June's end. #SupremeCourt #TrumpCase #PresidentialImmunity #LegalBattle #ElectionControversy #CapitolRiot #LegalIssues #JusticeSystem

A bankruptcy judge has ruled that Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, can appeal the $146 million defamation verdict in the case involving two Georgia elections workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea "Shaye" Moss.  The jury found Giuliani liable for defaming them by baselessly accusing them of attempting fraud in Georgia as part of efforts to overturn Donald Trump's 2020 election defeat. Giuliani, who filed for bankruptcy in December, will be allowed to appeal the verdict if he uses pre-approved donors to cover legal expenses. The bankruptcy judge in New York emphasized that any third-party payments must receive prior approval and cannot be sourced from Giuliani's existing assets.  I believe this development follows the jury's December decision that significantly impacted the lives of Freeman and Moss, subjecting them to racist and violent threats. #defamation #legalnews #bankruptcylaw #georgia #donaldtrump #elections #legalproceedings #court #legaladvice

THE REPUBLICAN MYTH OF LAW AND ORDER In my nearly 60 years of voting, I cannot remember a Republican campaign that didn't say "vote Republican for law and order", implying, when not explicitly stating, that Democrats and the left are the harbingers of chaos and crime. Even when there were peaceful protests, Republicans pushed the law and order versus chaos and crime theme. And, of course, they are doing so again using Springfield, Ohio as the Republican poster city for chaos and crime caused by "illegal" immigrants (ignoring, as per the usual Republican way, the fact that the immigrants are not "illegal" nor are they causing widespread chaos or crime in Springfield). Now, however, America will get its chance to see whether the Republican demand for law and order applies to Republicans. The Haitian community in Springfield has filed the paperwork to cause criminal charges to be brought against Trump and Vance for the harm their false statements have brought to Springfield and the Haitian community there. The paperwork asks that arrest warrants be issued for Trump and Vance. As believers in law and order, one would think that Trump and Vance would voluntarily agree to have a hearing on the Haitian community's claims, but my bet is they will have their lawyers fight tooth and nail in opposition. Republican law and order only applies to others, not to themselves. https://lnkd.in/eu3Fitu9

🔍 Breaking News From TribLIVE : A prosecutor won't oppose delaying Trump's sentencing in the hush money case after a recent high court ruling on immunity. Dive into the details and implications of this development. Read the full article here: [https://lnkd.in/dCza_74h] Join the conversation: What should be the priority in addressing high-profile cases like Trump's? Share your opinion at the Sided poll below!⚖️ #Trump #LegalNews #TribLive #Sided #Election2024 #SidedPoll

Our former president continues to lose in court which is encouraging to those of us who want to see justice for all his illegal actions. No one is above the law! “A federal appeals court has unanimously ruled that Donald Trump can be put on trial for trying to stay in power after losing the 2020 election, rejecting Trump’s sweeping claim of presidential immunity and moving the case one step closer to a jury. “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the panel of three judges wrote. “The interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation.” Trump has already indicated that he plans to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling. While his legal arguments keep failing in court, even rulings against him aid his goal of delaying any federal trial in D.C. until after the presidential election. The court said it would put the ruling on hold until Feb. 12 for Trump to appeal to the Supreme Court but would not wait for the full D.C. Circuit to weigh in.” #justice #voteoutMAGARepublicans #GOP #commonsense #leadership #stoptheinsanity #accountability #nooneisabovethelaw

𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲! #Donald #Trump 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩 𝙍𝙪𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙣 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙄𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮: 𝙄𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙢𝙥 Absolute Immunity for Official Acts The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that American presidents have "absolute immunity" for their official actions, addressing several charges against former President Donald Trump. The decision emphasizes the protection afforded to presidential acts within their constitutional authority. 𝙏𝙧𝙪𝙢𝙥'𝙨 𝙄𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝘼𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 Federal prosecutors have charged Trump with four criminal offenses related to the 2020 presidential election. They allege that he "conspired" to overturn the election results by spreading "knowingly false claims" of fraud to obstruct the collection, counting, and certification of votes. 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙂𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙄𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 "In our constitutional system of separated powers, the nature of presidential authority grants a former president absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his definitive and exclusive constitutional powers," the court stated in a 6-3 decision. "He is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for all official actions. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." 𝘿𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙊𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙫𝙨. 𝙐𝙣𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝘼𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 The ruling allows lower courts to hold evidentiary hearings to determine which of Trump's actions might have been unofficial, such as when he contacted state and local election officials regarding the 2020 votes. The court cautioned that motives behind presidential actions should not be scrutinized when distinguishing between official and unofficial conduct. 𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘼𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙋𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙄𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 "The president is not above the law. However, under our system of separated powers, the president cannot be prosecuted for executing his core constitutional authorities, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for his official acts," the ruling stated. 𝙄𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙣 𝙎𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙨𝙚𝙡'𝙨 𝙋𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙨 The Supreme Court saved the immunity case for the last day of its term. This long-anticipated decision deals a blow to special counsel Jack Smith's plans to prosecute Trump in federal court in Washington before the November elections. #US #Supremecourt #Washington #federalcourt #court #President #immunity #trump #maga #constitution #justice

The U.S. Supreme Court found that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for any actions that were within his constitutional powers as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity is nothing short of a UN-American reshaping of the Presidency. A principle fundamental to our Constitution is challenged as no man is above the law. The majority's move effectively shields Presidents from criminal liability, sparking concerns echoed by legal experts nationwide. Under scrutiny the majorities arguments use brute force not logical reasoning or historical precedent. Dissecting the majority's reasoning reveals flaws, as highlighted by Justice Jackson's dissent, exposing the illogical nature of the immunity ruling. By carving out a law-free zone around the President, the Court disrupts the established order dating back to the Founding, setting a extremely dangerous precedent: “The official-versus-unofficial act distinction seems both arbitrary and irrational, for it suggests that the unofficial criminal acts of a President are the only ones worthy of prosecution. Quite to the contrary, it is when the President commits crimes using his unparalleled official powers that the risks of abuse and autocracy will be most dire.” The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding.” The unabated partisanship of the majority, coupled with a Chief Justice seemingly aligned with an agenda aiming to dismantle government, poses a significant risk to democracy, the rule of law, and our way of life. This underscores the urgency for the American people to unite, safeguard what remains, and forge a path towards a safer future for generations to come. The choice lies in our hands. #PresidentialImmunity #SupremeCourtRuling #Democracy #RuleOfLaw #AmericanPeople

Several justices on Supreme Court are clearly on Trump's side against the Constitution GOP Justices siding with Trump that one has to split the official acts from the private acts is #absurd since the private acts envelope the official acts and are guiding the official acts to their intended private objective of private benefit. in case of 2020 election, overturning election results would benefit Trump and not the official . In software engineering, Decorator is a structural design pattern that lets you attach new behaviors to objects by placing these objects inside special wrapper objects that contain the behaviors. thus, Trump is a #Decorator which attaches #corrupt behaviors to public acts , by placing public acts #inside Trump wrappers that contain corrupt behaviors. Hence, the acts have to be prosecuted as as #integralWhole, since the public act(s) is a constituent or component of Trump criminal wrappers. Prosecuting the Trump corruption wrapper on it's own doesn't make any sense since you lack the necessary context to assess the crime Glenn Kirschner it would be great to hear you speak to this issue on your podcast. From the hearing it is clear that there exists a strong case to purge half of the justices on the Supreme Court The Democratic Coalition U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division MSNBC CNN Glenn Kirschner