But while evidence harked back to the past, the implications of both cases weigh heavily on the future — given their capacity to shape November’s election, a possible second Trump administration and the presidency itself for eons to come.
Prosecutors have framed the trial as more than a simple case of falsifying business records — the offense with which Trump has been charged.
Trump, like any other criminal defendant in the legal system he often blasts as unfair, enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
But the results of Trump’s pending cases — and whether they even come to trial — could help decide the tone of a future presidency.
But at the same time, Trump is using the privileges of appeals available to any defendant to their full extent.
In the process, he is raising fundamental questions about the powers of the presidency and the US constitutional settlement that at some level can only be decided by the Supreme Court — regardless of the pressures of the electoral calendar.
“We’re writing a rule for the ages.” It’s always hazardous to speculate how Supreme Court justices will rule based on their questioning in oral arguments.
This could mean the case returns to lower courts for more litigation — a move that could delay the federal election trial for months, far beyond the November election.
The stakes for the nation remained clear despite a crazy day filled with frequently absurd legal arguments and tabloid stories.
The two cities and the deepest thoughts of George Washington and a former National Enquirer publisher known for outrageous celebrity scandals and questionable UFO sightings were given equal billing in a legal spectacle that only Donald Trump could have imagined.
In absentia at a US Supreme Court hearing centered on his bold assertions that the president ought to enjoy complete, king-like immunity from prosecution, the former president was the center of attention on Thursday during pivotal testimony from media mogul David Pecker at his first criminal trial in New York.
The two and a half centuries of legal arguments and allusions went from the founders’ vision of the presidency to Trump’s purported attempts to use dubious tactics to influence the 2016 and 2020 elections.
Although the evidence pointed to the past, both cases have significant future ramifications because they have the potential to influence November’s election, a potential second Trump administration, and the presidency itself for a very long time.
A case heard by the Supreme Court that will have serious long-term effects.
The presumptive Republican nominee’s astounding assertion that presidents must have complete immunity from prosecution, which seems to directly disprove the founders’ suspicion of unaccountable monarchical power, caused nine justices on the US Supreme Court—three of whom were appointed by Trump—to argue with one another. The case stems from the special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of the former president for his attempts to rig the 2020 election, which he wrongly claims to have won. Furthermore, if Trump is granted a second term in November and feels that he is immune to prosecution for any crimes he may have committed while in office, this case will have a significant impact on his behavior.
“Very powerful presidential immunity is imperative or you practically won’t have a country anymore,” Trump warned in a chilling statement following the hearing. His words appeared to be what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was thinking about when she retaliated against Trump’s lawyer, who had threatened to neutralize a president who lived in constant fear of being held accountable for his actions while in office. Jackson claimed that in such a situation, the White House might turn into “a seat of criminality.”. “.
You seem concerned that the president won’t be feeling well, she continued. If the president wasn’t chill, I believe we would be facing a very serious opposite issue. “.
A “catch-and-kill” plan is revealed to the jury.
At Trump’s first criminal trial, which took place in New York 230 miles away, Pecker testified for hours on end about more scandalous topics. He mentioned the “catch-and-kill” strategy that the then-GOP nominee claimed Trump employed to suppress unfavorable reports about his personal life and the payment of hush money to an adult film star, which the candidate didn’t want the public to know about ahead of the 2016 election. Friday afternoon will see the continuation of the cross-examination of Pecker by Trump’s legal team.
Trump is accused of fabricating business records, but the prosecution has presented the case as more than that. During opening remarks on Monday, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told the jury, “This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up, an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of a presidential election, and then the steps that Donald Trump took to conceal that illegal election fraud.”.
In contrast, Trump’s supporters contend that he is being singled out because of his identity, taking a far less idealistic stance on the matter. They maintain that there should have been no charges brought against the alleged accounting irregularities in the business, or at least not felonies.
According to a recent CNN poll, the public is still not persuaded, and it will ultimately be asked to weigh in on all the legal drama in November. Just 44% of Americans said they were confident the jury selected for the case would be able to return a just verdict, while 56% were less optimistic.
However, there is another finding that should worry Trump. Twenty-four percent of voters who are currently supporting Trump against President Joe Biden in the 2024 election say they will not abandon him even if he is found guilty of a crime; however, the majority of those voters also stated they would not support Biden. The inquiry made no mention of a criminal conviction stemming from a particular instance. In four criminal cases, Trump has entered not guilty pleas. The hush money case might be the only one to go to trial prior to the election, but it’s still unclear how the political landscape would change if any of the others were found not guilty or found not guilty.
The history of the Constitution according to Trump.
A former president should be tried for undermining elections, which are the cornerstones of the US democratic system. This is a question that is raised by the hush money case and Trump’s Supreme Court appeal. Like all criminal defendants in the legal system, including Trump, whom he frequently criticizes for being unjust, he is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The notion that Trump prioritized his personal goals over the imperative need to maintain these institutions, however, runs through both prosecutions. Additionally, the charges against Trump center on his persistent refusal to follow the laws and regulations that other Americans—and previous presidents—have accepted. This is also the case with the additional Georgia election interference case and the federal case involving his hoarding of classified documents in Florida.
The political significance of the cases stems from this. If Trump weren’t the front-runner and had no chance of winning the presidency again, these inquiries would be more scholarly and would only concern past behavior. However, the outcome of Trump’s ongoing legal battles—and whether they ever go to trial—may have an impact on the course of a subsequent administration.
After a long day of testimony in New York, Trump mentioned his Supreme Court appeal as he emerged from the podium, cautioning that the presidency would become nothing more than a “ceremonial” office if it did not enjoy full immunity. The founders did not intend for that, he asserted. However, the vision of one of the founders to whom he referred—Washington, who was mentioned in the oral arguments alongside Benjamin Franklin—directly conflicts with his desire for a strongman’s presidency. Trump’s attorneys contended that Washington’s cautionary remarks regarding political parties in his parting speech should serve as a buffer against any criminal charges against Trump for meddling in the election, though as CNN’s Zachary B. They might have been selective when providing the relevant background, according to Wolf.
Much of the modern world would remain mysterious to Washington, but the first president would see right away the threat the 45th posed to democracy. During the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Washington wrote to the Marquis de Lafayette that he was driven to return to public life in order to create a US government that could withstand “anarchy and confusion” and would not be “dictated perhaps by some aspiring demagogue who will not consult the interest of his Country so much as his own ambitious views.”. “.
The Supreme Court is facing a crucial issue, which irritates many liberals.
Many Democrats are incensed that Trump’s frivolous appeal, which they believe is an attempt to prevent a potentially damaging criminal trial and potential conviction before the 2024 election, was granted a hearing by the Supreme Court. His legal wrangling may ensure that he escapes accountability for his attempt to rig the 2020 election before the 2024 contest.
However, Trump is simultaneously making the most of the appeals rights that are open to all defendants. In the process, he is posing basic queries concerning the authority of the US Constitution and the presidency, which ultimately rest only with the Supreme Court, independent of election-cycle pressure.
Former Trump ally and now major Biden donor George Conway, a conservative attorney, contended that the justices should take up the matter of presidential immunity before a possible second Trump term.
“Let’s say that on January 20, 2025, a man becomes president and wants to exact revenge on his political rivals. He appoints an attorney general who would prosecute those who have previously opposed this president,” Conway said to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “These are valid inquiries. “.
In the hearing on Thursday, Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch stated as much: “I’m not concerned about this case, but I’m concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.”. “We’re drafting a guideline for all time.”. “.
It’s never safe to predict the Supreme Court justices’ decisions based solely on the questions they pose during oral arguments. Though many legal experts agreed on Thursday that Trump’s claim of universal presidential immunity would probably be rejected, the court might recognize specific areas of immunity to protect future presidents from politically motivated prosecutions. The federal election trial may be delayed for months, well beyond the November election, if this means the case is sent back to lower courts for additional litigation. This holds significance because, should he win the presidency once more, Trump has the ability to name an attorney general to drop all charges against him and absolve him of responsibility for his actions around the 2020 election.
Still, another Trump appointee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, managed to persuade Trump’s lawyer, David Sauer, to concede that not all of the former president’s actions following the 2020 election qualified as official acts that might be shielded from prosecution by offering a possible middle-ground solution. This created the possibility that the prosecution would craft a reduced indictment to serve as the foundation for a trial that happens faster.
It seemed surreal that there was even a hearing at all as the discussion of Trump’s outrageous claims developed.
When Sauer was made to concede that the former president’s position made sense, it was the most unexpected part of the oral arguments. “What if a president gives the military orders to stage a coup?” liberal Justice Elena Kagan posed the question.
“If it’s an official act, there needs to be an impeachment and conviction beforehand” through Congress, Sauer retorted, before any legal action was taken. Kagan questioned Sauer about whether he thought such a coup would be considered a “official act.”. “.
It might very well be, he replied, based on how you phrased that hypothetical.
Kagan answered, “Well, that sounds awful, doesn’t it?”.
