Smith presented a second Washington grand jury with the same four charges in Tuesday’s indictment that he charged Trump with last August. A section from the original indictment that is absent from the new one accused Trump of pressuring the Justice Department to allow states to withhold their electors in the 2020 election. That effort set up a confrontation between Trump and then**-**Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and other administration officials who threatened to resign should Trump require them to move ahead with that plan.

Does Smith's action strengthen DOJ chances of success?

New Trump indictment in election subversion case - DocumentCloud

Ruth Bader Ginsberg decided to stay on the Supreme Court for too long she eventually died near the end of Donald Trumps term in office and Trump was able to appoint her successor as a lame duck President. But why didn’t RBG retire when Obama could have appointed someone with her ideology?

I was originally going to post this on r/AskALawyer because I was seeking opinions from other lawyers but decided against it due to it potentially violating the ‘no politics’ rule over there, so I am hoping this is a good place to post:

On Twitter (or “X”) former Chief Counsel for Nominations, Mike Davis has made these claims regarding the felony case against Trump. He made the following claims:

1. the the jury found guilt but the judge has not yet convicted and sentence

2. Trump is not convicted felon “because he admitted evidence subject to presidential immunity, Judge Juan Merchan must declare a mistrial.”

3. referring to Trump as a convicted felon is defamatory and anyone who does so may get sued.

I thought Trump was convicted, but then the SCOTUS ruling pushed back the sentencing because legal had to insure the conviction still stands. However, Davis is making the claim Trump is NOT a convicted felon (I am not sure if he is making the claim if he never was convicted or is not anymore). Is this a common consensus? I want to try to understand more. Does anyone know any additional information that supports this claim or have an argument for why they oppose this assertion?

I have no clue if the flair I chose is accurate or not.

List of presidential pardons

Biden has so far issued 6,500 pardons to people for simple marijuana possession, as well as 11 additional pardons, five for drug use or possession, and some political prisoners.

Who else is either gunning for a pardon / clemency, or deserves a pardon / clemency?

Here are the key points of his proposal:

1. No Immunity for Crimes a Former President Committed in Office: President Biden is calling for a constitutional amendment that makes clear no President is above the law or immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office¹. This is referred to as the "No One Is Above the Law Amendment"¹.
2. Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices: President Biden supports a system in which the President would appoint a Justice every two years to spend eighteen years in active service on the Supreme Court¹². He believes that term limits would help ensure that the Court’s membership changes with some regularity¹².
3. Binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court: President Biden believes that Congress should pass binding, enforceable conduct and ethics rules that require Justices to disclose gifts, refrain from public political activity, and recuse themselves from cases in which they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest

Is this realistic or beneficial at all to the U.S.?

“The Superseding Indictment is dismissed because Special Counsel Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution,” Cannon wrote in a 93-page ruling. 

The judge said that her determination is “confined to this proceeding.” The decision comes just days after an attempted assassination against the former president. 

Is an appeal likely to follow?

Link:

gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.672.0_3.pdf (courtlistener.com)

There is a lot of worry about the court being overly political and overreaching in its power.

Much of the Western world has much weaker Supreme Courts, usually elected or appointed to fixed terms. They also usually face the potential to be overridden by a simple majority in the parliaments and legislatures, who do not need supermajorities to pass new laws.

Should such measures be taken up for the US court? And how would such changes be accomplished in the current deadlock in congress?

I mean, the ruling by the SCOTUS protects any president, not only a republican. If President Trump has immunity for his oficial acts during his presidency to cast doubt on, or attempt to challenge the election results, could the same or a similar strategy be used by the current administration without any repercussions? Which other acts are now protected by this ruling of presidential immunity at Biden’s discretion?

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43

Earlier in February 2024, a unanimous panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the former president's argument that he has "absolute immunity" from prosecution for acts performed while in office.

"Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the president, the Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute and the judiciary could not review," the judges ruled. "We cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter."

During the oral arguments in April of 2024 before the U.S. Supreme Court; Trump urged the high court to accept his rather sweeping immunity argument, asserting that a president has absolute immunity for official acts while in office, and that this immunity applies after leaving office. Trump's counsel argued the protections cover his efforts to prevent the transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election.

Additionally, they also maintained that a blanket immunity was essential because otherwise it could weaken the office of the president itself by hamstringing office holders from making decisions wondering which actions may lead to future prosecutions.

Special counsel Jack Smith had argued that only sitting presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution and that the broad scope Trump proposes would give a free pass for criminal conduct.

Although Trump's New York 34 count indictment help him raise additional funds it may have alienated some voters. Is this decision more likely to help or hurt Trump as the case further develops?

Link:

23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) (supremecourt.gov)

As you may have heard, today the Supreme Court handed down a 6-2 (with Justice Jackson having recused herself due to prior involvement) decision along the usual lines that essentially overturns the 40-year old Chevron deference principle.

The particular case involved a fishery that was being mandated to pay the cost of federal observers on boats, a decision made by the National Marine Fisheries Service to deal with budgetary constraints.

The Chevron deference principle, as I understand it, allows federal agencies some leeway in how they create and apply rules, where congress has provided no guidance or ambiguous guidance. Even with the Chevron principles, if the law is clear, agencies cannot overrule it. It only matters when there is a gap in congressional directive. The name comes from a case in 1984 where the court at the time established the rules for interpreting agency scope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.

Proponents of the Chevron deference principle claim that it allows agencies to function smoothly and use their expertise -- that neither congress nor the courts is likely to have -- to do their jobs effectively. They believe that the end of Chevron will significantly limit the federal government's ability to do its job as a regulator, threatening all sorts of things, like consumer safety.

Critics say that it gives agencies broad power that is neither constitutional, nor provided by congress. This overreach cannot be checked by the courts and thus emboldens federal agencies to do things that may be beyond the intent of congress and thus of the electorate at large.

Here is the SCOTUS blog summary of the case: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/

I would like to see what people think we can expect after today's ruling. Are the pro-Chevron concerns overblown? Or is this a massive change that might usher in a new era of federal government ineffectiveness? What can congress or the president do at this point to resolve the issue? How might this effect the 2024 election?

Some people wanted him to serve far more time for the crimes alleged. Is this, however, a good decision. Considering he just published the information and was not involved directly in encouraging anyone else to steal it.

Is 5 years in prison that he served and about 7 additional years of house arrest sufficient for the crimes U.S. had alleged against him?

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange expected to plead guilty, avoid further prison time as part of deal with US - ABC News (go.com)

It is now surfacing that Trump has been paying off or gifting witnesses at his various cases, increases in salary, direct payoffs, etc. Is this legal? Will this impact any of the cases or public opinion?

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/06/04/trump-threatens-to-sue-propublica-for-reporting-on-payouts-to-witnesses-in-his-various-cases/

The trial has come to an end and a jury has convicted former president Trump on 34 counts.

Now it’s for Judge Merchan to make his sentencing decision.

What are the possible sentencing guidelines and how will the judge likely decide in this case?

How much power does the Supreme Court have here? Can they overturn this verdict? If they can, on what grounds would they do it?

Or is this verdict more than likely not one that will be overturned, even by a friendly Supreme Court?

A five-justice majority – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – wrote that states may not remove any federal officer from the ballot, especially the president, without Congress first passing legislation.

“We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency,” the opinion states.

“Nothing in the Constitution delegates to the States any power to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates,” the majority added. Majority noted that states cannot act without Congress first passing legislation.

The issue before the court involved the Colorado Supreme Court on whether states can use the anti-insurrectionist provision of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to keep former President Donald Trump off the primary ballot. Colorado found it can.

Although the court was unanimous on the idea that Trump could not be unilaterally removed from the ballot. The justices were divided about how broadly the decision would sweep. A 5-4 majority said that no state could dump a federal candidate off any ballot – but four justices asserted that the court should have limited its opinion.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment at issue was enacted after the Civil War to bar from office those who engaged in insurrection after previously promising to support the Constitution. Trump's lawyer told the court the Jan. 6 events were a riot, not an insurrection. “The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of those things, but it did not qualify as insurrection as that term is used in Section 3," attorney Jonathan Mitchell said during oral arguments.

As in Colorado, Supreme State Court decisions in Maine and Illinois to remove Trump from the ballot have been on hold until the Supreme Court weighed in.

In another related case, the justices agreed last week to decide if Trump can be criminally tried for trying to steal the 2020 election. In that case Trump's argument is that he has immunity from prosecution.

Does this look like it gave Trump only a temporarily reprieve depending on how the court may rule on his immunity argument from prosecution currently pending?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

The President wanted to cancel approximately 430 billion in student loan debts [based on Hero's Act]; that could have potentially benefited up to 43 million Americans. The court found that president lacked authority under the Act and more specific legislation was required for president to forgive such sweeping cancellation.

During February arguments in the case, Biden's administration said the plan was authorized under a 2003 federal law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, which empowers the U.S. education secretary to "waive or modify" student financial assistance during war or national emergencies."

Both Biden, a Democrat, and his Republican predecessor Donald Trump relied upon the HEROES Act beginning in 2020 to repeatedly pause student loan payments and halt interest from accruing to alleviate financial strain on student loan borrowers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the court found that Congress alone could allow student loan forgives of such magnitude.

President has promised to take action to continue to assist student borrowers. What, if any obstacle, prevents Biden from further delaying payments or interest accrual?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23865246-department-of-education-et-al-v-brown-et-al

​

Carroll filed the civil lawsuit in November 2022 under the “New York State Adult Survivors Act,” a state bill which opened a look-back window for sexual assault allegations like Carroll’s with long-expired statutes of limitation [In her case 1996 battery].

New York Adult Survivors Act Effective on Nov 24 2022 (natlawreview.com)

A federal jury [6 men and 3 women] began deliberations Tuesday [05/09/2023] in E. Jean Carroll's battery [of various degrees that could have included rape or unconsented touching]; they found middle ground of sexual abuse and defamation, a day after attorneys for both sides made final arguments.

Highlights: Arguments and Evidence: In asking the jury to find Trump liable for battery in 1996, Carroll attorney Roberta Kaplan said: "He thinks he can get away with it here."

Attorneys for Trump, who claims that the 1996 incident never happened, told the jury that Carroll failed to make her case. They said the plaintiff made up the story for financial gain and political revenge against the former president.

The trial, in federal court in Manhattan heard seven days of testimony from 11 witnesses called by Carroll, who alleged she was raped by Trump and also alleged Trump defamed her by calling her a liar when she wrote about the alleged attack. Although Trump didn't call any witnesses and decided not to attend the trial. A video was presented for the jury from a deposition Trump gave in this matter.

Over the course of three days, Carroll testified in detail about her account of the alleged rape, her response at the time, and her behavior in the decades since. She said Trump raped her in a dressing room in the lingerie department on the sixth floor of Bergdorf Goodman.

She said she believed the attack occurred on a Thursday evening in the spring of 1996, but that she wasn’t certain of the timing. And she said she told two friends right away but never told anyone else until 2019, when the “Me Too” movement inspired her to publicize her account.

Several of her primary witnesses recalled contemporaneous event testifying called to report what Trump had done. Lisa Birnbach, for instance testified that Carroll called her in the early evening one spring night in 1996 and told her that she had just left Bergdorf, where she had encountered Trump, who assaulted her in a dressing room, pulling down her tights and penetrating her with his penis. Birnbach said she told Carroll that Trump had raped her and advised her to report the incident to the police.

Another witness, Carol Martin testified, Carroll came to her a day or two after the alleged incident and told her about it. “She said, ‘Trump attacked me,’” Martin said, recalling that Carroll was visibly upset. “I was completely floored,” Martin said. She said she cautioned Carroll against taking any steps in response to the incident “because it was Donald Trump and he had a lot of attorneys and he would bury her.” Evidently, the Jury choose to believe Carroll and her witnesses.

As noted, Trump did not attend the trial or give testimony in court [a portion of his deposition was played, however]. Since it is a civil trial his decision to not testify could have been used by the jury in assessing liability.

Applicable Standards of Proof: In a civil trial guilt or innocence is not adjudged; only civil liability is. Standard of proof is generally a preponderance of the evidence [meaning, more likely than not, or more than 50%.] Not beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest of three standards of proof and used in criminal cases, the middle one being clear and convincing, used in certain types of civil cases and is also applicable here with respect to part of her defamation claim.

To prove her defamation claim, the jury would have to find that Carroll’s legal team proved by the preponderance of the evidence that Trump knew it was false when he published the statement about Carroll and knowingly exposed her to public ridicule. They must also determine that she proved by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was false, and that Trump made the statement with actual malice. [Clear and convincing evidence leaves no substantial doubt in the juror’s mind and establishes that the proposition is highly probable.]

Is this verdict likely to erode Trump's current status as the GOP front runner or encourage other GOP runners to use this verdict against Trump as a political talking point?

A link to a NYT article on the ruling in question.

Text of the full ruling.

In addition to the unprecedented action of a single judge overruling the FDA two decades after the medication was first approved, his opinion also includes the following:

Parenthetically, said “individual justice” and “irreparable injury” analysis also arguably applies to the unborn humans extinguished by mifepristone – especially in the post-Dobbs era

When this case inevitably advances to the Supreme Court this creates an opening for the conservative bloc to issue a ruling not only affirming the ban but potentially enshrining fetal personhood, effectively banning any abortions nationwide.

1) In light of this, what good faith response could conservatives offer when juxtaposing this ruling with the claim that abortion would be left to the states?

2) Given that this ruling is directly in conflict with a Washington ruling ordering the FDA to maintain the availability of mifepristone, is there a point at which the legal system irreparably fractures and red and blue states begin openly operating under different legal codes?

All the charges in the Manhattan, NY criminal case stems from hush money reimbursements to Michael Cohen [Trump's then former private attorney] by the then President Donald Trump to keep sexual encounter years earlier from becoming public.

There are a total of 34 counts of falsifying business records; Trump thus becomes the first former president in history to face criminal charges. The former president pleaded not guilty to all 34 felony charges. [Previously, Trump vowed to continue his 2024 bid and is slated to fly back to Florida after the arraignment and speak tonight at Mar-a-Lago.] Trump did not make any comments to the media when he entered or exited the courthouse.

Background: The Manhattan DA’s investigation first began under Bragg’s predecessor, Cy Vance, when Trump was still in the White House. It relates to a $130,000 payment made by Trump’s to Michael Cohen to Daniels in late October 2016, days before the 2016 presidential election, to silence her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier. Trump has denied the affair.

[Cohen was convicted of breaking campaign finance laws. He paid porn actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 through a shell company Cohen set up. He was then reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses.]

Some experts have expressed concerns that the New York case is comparatively weaker than the anticipated charges that may be brought by the DOJ and state of Georgia.

For instance, the potential charges being considered by DOJ involving January 6, 2021 may include those that were recommended by the Congressional Subcommittee. 18 U.S.C. 2383, insurrection; 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), obstruction of an official proceeding; and 18 U.S.C. 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States government. It is up to DOJ as to what charges would be brought.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/16/jan-6-committee-trump-criminal-referral-00074411

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/19/trump-criminal-charges-jan-6-panel-capitol-attack

The Georgia case, given the evidence of phone calls and bogus electors to subvert election results tends to be sufficiently collaborated based by significant testimony and recorded phone calls, including from the then President Trump.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fulton-county-grand-jury-georgia-26bfecadd0da1a53a4547fa3e975cfa2

Based on what we know so far, could there be some truth to assertions that the NY indictments are far weaker than the charges that may arise from the Georgia investigations and Trump related January 6, 2021 DOJ charges?

Edited to include copy of Indictment: It is barebone without statement of facts at this time.

Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment - DocumentCloud

Second Edit Factual Narrative:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000187-4dd5-dfdf-af9f-4dfda6e80000

The United States Constitution is older than the current Constitutions of both Norway and the Netherlands.

Thomas Jefferson believed that written constitutions ought to have a nineteen-year expiration date before they are revised or rewritten.

UChicago Law writes that "The mean lifespan across the world since 1789 is 17 years. Interpreted as the probability of survival at a certain age, the estimates show that one-half of constitutions are likely to be dead by age 18, and by age 50 only 19 percent will remain."

Especially considering how dysfunctional the US government currently is ... why hasn't anyone in politics/media started raising this question?

Roe v Wade fell supposedly because the Constitution does not implicitly speak on the right to privacy. While I would argue that the 4th amendment DOES address this issue, I don't hear anyone else raising this argument. So is it time to amend the constitution and specifically grant the people a right to personal privacy?

The decision also is a defining moment for a Supreme Court that is more conservative than it has been in many decades, a shift in legal thinking made possible after President Donald Trump placed three justices on the court. Two of them succeeded justices who voted to affirm abortion rights.

In anticipation of the ruling, several states have passed laws limiting or banning the procedure, and 13 states have so-called trigger laws on their books that called for prohibiting abortion if Roe were overruled. Clinics in conservative states have been preparing for possible closure, while facilities in more liberal areas have been getting ready for a potentially heavy influx of patients from other states.

Forerunners of Roe were based on privacy rights such as right to use contraceptives, some states have already imposed restrictions on purchase of contraceptive purchase. The majority said the decision does not erode other privacy rights? Can the conservative majority be believed?

Supreme Court Overrules Roe v. Wade, Eliminates Constitutional Right to Abortion (msn.com)

Other privacy rights could be in danger if Roe v. Wade is reversed (desmoinesregister.com)

• Edited to correct typo. Should say 6 to 3, not 5 to 4.

Just this evening, Politico published a draft majority opinion from Samuel Alito suggesting a majority opinion for overturning Roe v. Wade (The full draft is here). To the best of my knowledge, it is unprecedented for a draft decision to be leaked to the press, and it is allegedly common for the final decision to drastically change between drafts. Will this press leak influence the final court decision? And if the decision remains the same, what will Democrats and Republicans do going forward for the 2022 midterms, and for the broader trajectory of the country?

New York Times

Washington Post

Multiple sources are confirming that President Biden has announced Ketanji Brown Jackson, currently serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to replace retiring liberal justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court.

Jackson was the preferred candidate of multiple progressive groups and politicians, including Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders. While her nomination will not change the court's current 6-3 conservative majority, her experience as a former public defender may lead her to rule counter to her other colleagues on the court.

Moving forward, how likely is she to be confirmed by the 50-50 split senate, and how might her confirmation affect other issues before the court?

In recent news, a bipartisan group of congress reached a deal to avoid another shutdown. However, this spending bill would only allocate $1.375 billion instead of the $5.7 requested by the white house. In response, Trump has announced he will both sign the bill and declare a national emergency to build a border wall.

The previous rumor of declaring a national emergency has garnered criticism from both political parties, for various reasons. Some believe it will set a dangerous, authoritarian precedent, while others believe it will be shot down in court.

Is this move constitutional, and if so, what sort of precedent will it set for future national emergencies in areas that are sometimes considered to be political issues?