Donald Trump achieved a partial victory at the Supreme Court today, as the justices delayed any possible decision on his immunity case over the election riots.
Trump argued Thursday that he has complete immunity from the 2020 riots, and while Supreme Court justices were not convinced by his arguments, some suggested he might have some level of immunity and delayed any potential decision on the matter until June.
If they later rule that the former president has a level of immunity, the issue could return to lower courts to decide what that level is and delay any potential decision beyond the November election.
On Thursday, Trump, who made history as his country’s first former leader to face a criminal trial, was also fighting on two other separate legal fronts. They include:
• His hush money trial in New York, where he is accused of falsifying business records after allegedly paying money to porn actress Stormy Daniels to “cover up an affair.”
• His defamation case, brought by writer E Jean Carroll: a judge rejected Trump’s bid to overturn the verdict against him, leaving him facing a payout of $83.3m (£66.5m) .
And to compound Trump’s legal woes, his former lawyers and associates were charged Wednesday in a scheme related to the 2020 election in Arizona.
Follow the latest: Trump’s hush money and Supreme Court trials
Analysis: Trump has won a qualified victory in the Supreme Court
Trump in Manhattan Criminal Court with his lawyers. Photo: Reuters
Photo: Reuters
Supreme Court
During the proceedings, the judges seemed likely to reject Trump’s claims of total immunity, but they delayed any ruling to make a decision on what specific immunity he might or might not have.
Trump, 77, had even asked to be absent from his criminal trial in New York to attend special sessions of the Supreme Court.
In Washington, the lawyer representing the special counsel told the court that it had never before been recognized what kind of immunity Trump was actually seeking.
Chief Justice John Roberts said he was concerned that if presidents were not immune, the country would rely on “good faith” to avoid abusive prosecutions against presidents.
Read more from Sky News:
Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction overturned
Dolphin found shot to death on the beach
US considers cutting funding to notorious Israeli army unit
He told the special counsel’s attorney, Michael Dreeben: “Now you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get an indictment from a grand jury.
“And relying on the prosecutor’s good faith may not be enough in some cases; I’m not suggesting (Smith’s accusation against Trump) here.”
The Supreme Court is expected to release its opinions in late June on whether or not Trump has immunity.
With five judges likely to reject Trump’s claims of absolute immunity, some suggested the former president could have some level of immunity.
If the final ruling reflects that, lower courts may be required to sort out the specifics of this, which could delay any final decision beyond the November election.
Photo: AP
Money for your silence
Meanwhile, in New York, Trump was again present in Manhattan criminal court, accused of falsifying business records.
Earlier this week, the court I heard from AMI, the former editor of the National Enquirer.about an alleged “catch and kill” plot, which was said to have been used to get rid of negative stories about Trump.
David Pecker, the head of AMI who signed a non-prosecution agreement to testify, described shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy the rights to potentially damaging stories.
The National Enquirer, the court heard, bought a sordid story from a New York City bouncer as well as allegations of an extramarital affair with a former Playboy model to prevent the allegations from coming to light.
But Pecker reached his breaking point with Stormy Daniels, a porn actress who was allegedly paid by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen to keep quiet about her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Something he denies.
Pecker told jurors that his publication had been contacted by representatives of Daniels, who said they could buy his story for $120,000 (£96,000) if he decided immediately.
However, the editor-in-chief refused. He told Mr. Cohen: “I’m not going to pay for this story. I didn’t want to get involved in this from the beginning.”
After that, a cross-examination of Pecker began, with one of Trump’s lawyers, Emil Bove, taking center stage.
Reuters Photo
silence order
Floating over Thursday’s silencing process were accusations that Trump, once again, violated a gag order.
The order restricted Trump’s public speech about jurors, potential witnesses and some other people involved in the case.
Judge Juan Merchán was already considering whether to hold Trump in contempt and fine him for what prosecutors alleged were 10 separate violations of the order.
But on Thursday the prosecutor’s office pointed out new cases of alleged violations.
These were additional comments about Cohen and a comment Trump made about the jury being “95% Democrat,” among other things.
But Trump was previously dismissive of the threat of having to pay when speaking outside court, saying he had “no idea” whether he would be found.
Stay up to date with the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
E Jean Carroll
While things may have gone partly in his favor at the Supreme Court, a judge rejected Trump’s attempt to get a defamation verdict against him thrown out.
Writer E Jean Carroll said Trump defamed her after she accused him of raping her decades ago.
The court ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million in damages, and on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said Trump was not entitled to a new trial or sentencing, so he had to pay.