Trump’s two courtroom dramas could help shape his future presidency

(CNN) — A wild day of bizarre legal arguments and sensational stories could not obscure what was at stake for the country.

Only Donald Trump could set up a legal showdown in two cities that gave equal prominence to the deep views of George Washington and a former National Enquirer editor known for scandalous celebrity scandals and suspected UFO sightings.

The former president was the center of attention this Thursday during media mogul David Pecker’s key testimony in his first criminal trial in New York and, in his absence, at a U.S. Supreme Court hearing devoted to his bold claims that the president has absolute power. Must enjoy the discount. Like a king, by no means.

The legal arguments and context span two and a half centuries, from how the Founders envisioned the presidency to Trump’s alleged efforts to influence the 2016 and 2020 elections in nefarious ways.

But while the evidence goes back to the past, the implications of both cases loom heavily into the future, given the November election, a potential second Trump administration and their potential to shape the presidency for ages to come.

Supreme Court case with serious implications for the future

At the US Supreme Court, nine justices – three of whom were appointed by Trump – debated the presumptive Republican nominee’s surprising claim that presidents should enjoy complete immunity from prosecution, which directly contradicts an unaccountable monarchy. Rejects the founders’ suspicions of power. The case arises from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of the former President for efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which he falsely claimed he won. And the case has serious implications for how Trump will behave if he wins a second term in November and believes he can’t be charged for crimes he committed while in office. Can.

Trump issued an ominous warning after the hearing that “a very powerful presidential immunity is essential otherwise we will practically dismantle a country.” His sentiments appear to have been on the mind of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson when she responded to Trump’s attorney, who warned that a president who lives in fear of being prosecuted for acts in office has been rendered impotent. will be given. Jackson said that under such circumstances, the Oval Office could become a “headquarters of criminality”.

He added, “It seems like he’s concerned that the President is slacking off. I think if he didn’t do that we would have a really big opposite problem.”

Jury hears a story about a plan to “kill”

The topic was most provocative at Trump’s first criminal trial, 230 miles away in New York, where Pecker testified for hours. He talked about a “catch and kill” scheme (a practice of purchasing the rights to stories with journalistic potential harmful to anyone, with the ultimate goal of preventing their publication), which was allegedly used by Trump in his personal life. Negative stories about were suppressed and silenced. A payment of money to an adult film star, which the then-GOP candidate did not want voters to know about before the 2016 election. Trump’s lawyers began cross-examining Pecker this Thursday afternoon and will continue this Friday.

Prosecutors have framed the trial as more than just a case of falsifying business records, the crime Trump is accused of committing. “This case is about a criminal conspiracy and cover-up, an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the presidential election, and then the steps taken by Donald Trump to conceal that illegal election fraud,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told jurors during testimony. Is in.” Inauguration of hearing on Monday.

Trump supporters have little opinion on the matter, arguing that he is being singled out for who he is. They insist that alleged irregularities in corporate accounting should never be charged, or at least not as serious crimes.

According to a new CNN poll, so far the public, who ultimately has to render its verdict on this whole legal drama, is still unconvinced. Only 44% of Americans expressed confidence that the jury selected for the case would be able to reach a fair verdict, while 56% were more skeptical.

However, there is another fact that worries Trump. While the majority of voters who currently support Trump against President Joe Biden in the 2024 election say they would stick with him even if he were convicted of a crime, 24% say the conviction may make them reconsider their support, although the majority of those voters said they would not support Biden. The question did not mention any criminal conviction arising from a specific case. Trump faces four criminal charges, all of which he maintains he is innocent of. The secret money case may be the only case to go to trial before the elections, but it is unclear how an acquittal or conviction in any one of these cases might change the political climate.

Trump’s version of constitutional history

The hush money case and Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court raise questions about whether a former president should be prosecuted for undermining one of the pillars of the American democratic system — elections. Trump, like every other criminal defendant in a legal system that he often describes as unfair, enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But the underlying theme of both allegations is the idea that Trump put his own ambitions above the vital need to preserve those institutions. And as in the additional election interference case in Georgia and another federal case in Florida over the hoarding of classified documents, the charges against Trump revolve around his continued unwillingness to follow the rules and limits that other Americans and others have to follow. Presidents have accepted. ,

That is why the cases have so much political importance. If Trump were not a potential candidate to seek reelection to the presidency, these questions would be more academic and refer specifically to past behavior. But the outcome of Trump’s pending cases — and whether they go to trial — could help set the tone of his future presidency.

After a long day of statements in New York, Trump mentioned his appeal to the Supreme Court and warned that unless the presidency enjoys absolute immunity, it will only be a “ceremonial” position. He added: “This is not what the founders had in mind.” But his desire for a strong presidency directly contradicts the vision of one of the Founders he mentioned: Washington, who was mentioned alongside Benjamin Franklin in the oral arguments. Trump’s lawyers argued that Washington’s warning in his farewell address about the danger of political parties should help Trump avoid prosecution for election interference, although as CNN’s Zachary B. They can be selective about the context needed, Wolf points out.

Washington would be appalled by many things in the modern world, but the first president would quickly recognize the threats to democracy posed by the 45th president. In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette from the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Washington wrote that he felt compelled to return to public life to create a system of American government that could avoid “anarchy and confusion.” and which “will probably not be determined” by some future scoundrel who will advise not so much about the interest of his country as about his own ambitious opinions.”

The Supreme Court disappoints many liberals, but it faces an important question

Many Democrats are angry that the Supreme Court decided to hear a frivolous appeal of Trump to prevent the possibility of a potentially damaging criminal trial — and possible conviction — before the 2024 election, which could mean That they have nothing to do to respond to their attempt to steal the 2020 elections before the 2024 elections are held.

But at the same time, Trump is making full use of the appeals privileges available to any defendant. In the process, he is raising fundamental questions about presidential powers and the American constitutional settlement that, at some level, only the Supreme Court can decide, regardless of the pressures of the electoral calendar.

George Conway, a conservative lawyer who has become a Trump critic and is now a major Biden donor, argued that judges need to address the question of presidential immunity before a potential new Trump term.

“Suppose that on January 20, 2025, a man who seeks retribution against his political enemies takes power in the White House and appoints an attorney general who initiates proceedings against people who have opposed this president in the past. Will do,” Conway said to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “These are legitimate questions.”

Trump-appointed Judge Neil Gorsuch made this comment at Thursday’s hearing: “I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about the future use of criminal law to attack political opponents based on allegations about their motives.” Worried about,” he said. “We are writing a standard for eternity.”

It is always risky to predict how a Supreme Court justice will rule based on the questions he faces in oral arguments. But the consensus of many legal experts on Thursday was that although Trump would lose on his claim of presidential immunity, the court could recognize some specific areas of immunity so that future presidents are not subject to politically motivated prosecution.

That could mean the case returns to lower courts for more litigation, a move that could delay the federal election lawsuit for months beyond the November election. This is important because if re-elected President, Trump could nominate an Attorney General who would quash impeachment and avoid accountability for his actions related to the 2020 election.

But Amy Coney Barrett, another Trump-appointed judge, offered a possible compromise by getting Trump’s lawyer David Sawyer to agree that not all of the former president’s conduct after the 2020 election is an official act that could be subject to immunity. . This raised the possibility that prosecutors might draft a lesser indictment as a basis for moving the case forward more quickly.

As the intellectual debate over Trump’s unprecedented claims intensified, the fact that the hearings were even happening was simply surreal.

The most fraught moment of the oral arguments came when Sawyer was forced to acknowledge the logical extension of the former president’s position. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked, “What would happen if a president ordered the military to carry out a coup?”

Sawyer responded: “If it is an official act, there must be impeachment and prior conviction through Congress before any prosecution”. Kagan then asked whether Sawyer believed such a coup would be an “official act.”

He responded, “The way you described that hypothesis, it very well could be.”

“It sure feels bad, doesn’t it?” Kagan replied.