Donald Trump’s trial in this month is notable because it is happening. It was thought that Donald Trump would face four criminal cases before the 2024 elections, two in state courts and two in federal courts. Today, it appears that the New York State hush money case is still pending.
[[{“value”:”Donald Trump’s trial is taking place in real life, which is one of the reasons it is so distinctive this month. Before the 2024 elections, it appeared as recently as last summer that Trump would face four legal trials, two of which would be in state court and two in federal court. The New York state hush money case may be the only one, and perhaps always, to reach a jury before November. There is a lot of responsibility to be placed on the delays. But one person who deserves a lot of that blame—or credit—is Trump himself.
It’s important to remember that Trump is now escaping accountability thanks to the judges he installed during his first term, who have pushed off both national cases against him as the press and voters debate whether Trump’s autocratic tendencies could be checked in a potential next term.
Due to the judges he appointed, Trump is avoiding being held accountable.
Courts served as a significant constraint on Trump during his presidency, most notably when he and his supporters sued all over the country to try to overturn the results of the 2020 election. When those constitutional maneuvers failed, Trump used illegal means of power to hold onto his position, which led to a violent attack on the US Capitol.
The judges Trump has presently hired are assisting him in avoiding accountability for these and other choices. Yet at the Supreme Court, they are considering whether to grant Trump additional levels of immunity if he comes back to power. It’s a sign of how much damage Trump has previously done as well as a reminder of how far the people he surrounds himself with are willing to go, and how it will be nearly impossible to contain his strongman ambitions if he wins again.
Trump was the subject of two indictments against Special Counsel Jack Smith next summer. The second qualified his willful retention of top-secret documents at Mar-a-Lago after becoming president. Trump resisted returning all the records, then engaged in an attempted cover-up, first preventing their return, and finally thwarting prosecution.
The circumstances of the case are disturbing, including a great jury’s request to delete security camera footage and classified documents that were left in a bathroom. According to Georgia State University’s legal law professor Anthony Michael Kries, the case is “absolutely airtight.” In their book, The Trump Indictments, former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissman and NYU professor Melissa Murray write that” the evidence of guilt seems clearly evident” in the documents case against Trump.
Despite this, Trump has avoided trial in the strongest case against him because the case is being overseen solely by the judge. Federal Judge Aileen Cannon has been shocking the legitimate community consistently for two years with unparalleled orders that have harmed Trump, delayed proceedings, and protected him. The former president was fortunate that Cannon was given this case, but he even contributed by putting her on the bench to make his own luck. Her most notable qualifications when Trump nominated Cannon in 2020 were her age ( she was 39 ) and affiliation with the conservative Federalist Society. After Trump lost the election, she was confirmed in a vote that garnered support from 12 Democrats.
Cannon initially came to Trump’s rescue in 2022, when his lawyers went to national court to try to halt the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump’s handling of purloined classified documents. By blocking a portion of the probe, Cannon obliged in a magnificent way. According to Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, this was the first time a judge had intervened to stop a fugitive investigation prior to an indictment. Her decisions were soon reversed by two independent panels of the traditional 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that Cannon had proposed” a dramatic reordering of our case law” that was in violation of “bedrock separation of powers limitations.”
Some judges might have been chastened by this humiliation—but no Cannon. After the investigation, when Trump was charged and the documents case fully assigned to Cannon, it was evident prosecutors had drawn the little straw—and that Trump would not face trial, or at least a good one, under her watch. Over the past year, Cannon has continued to issue ridiculous orders, held hearings on inane questions, and engaged in every manner of delay. And she shows no signs of stopping. This month, she pushed the trial off indefinitely while scheduling hearings on motions filed by Trump’s legal team that, according to experts, should be dispatched with fast. Cannon has transformed her provincial courtroom into a kangaroo court.
Smith’s following indictment against Trump was filed in August 2022 for attempting to overturn his election loss. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, was given the authority to handle the case in Washington, DC. By limiting the charges to Trump, Murray and Weissman write,” the indictment was built for speed—to get a trial date so that the British public could see the evidence and hear the jury’s conclusions.” Chutkan recognized, with the election looming, it was important to move quickly. Trump, however, found yet more potent allies than a district court judge: a number of US Supreme Court justices.
The judge for the Trump-appointed document case has issued ridiculous orders and engaged in all manner of delay.
The former president would almost definitely be facing legal action for his attempt to overthrow British democracy and maintain power without the Supreme Court, which would have three justices appointed by Trump. Otherwise, the subversion controversy has been completely changed. The US Supreme Court is possible to use the case to grant Trump and upcoming presidents some level of immunity more than usher in efforts to hold Trump to account. That would make Trump’s illegitimate power grab harder to prosecute, as well as other presidents ‘ improper behavior.
Even if the GOP-appointed majority does n’t declare a new level of immunity for Trump and other former presidents as expected, their delays will prevent Trump from being tried until after the election because the justices have three times helped by reversing the case. The delay aids Trump’s campaign. If he wins, he will not face national trial, either because he pardons himself, or simply directs his appointees at the DOJ to drop the charges.
Trump made the bold claim that ex-presidents are immune from all established acts they commit while in office, despite having no justification for it in the Constitution or legal precedent. Chutkan smacked it over. Jack Smith requested that the Supreme Court soon jump-frog the administrative court when Trump requested review of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The justices declined to intervene in their second move by putting off the trial.
After the appeals court rebuked Trump’s theory of immunity, Smith suddenly asked the justices for help, as he urged the court to let the appellate ruling stand, or, failing that, to hear the case speedily. Otherwise, the justices took the case without any sense of urgency. Chutkan’s classic March 4 trial date came and went. On the final day of their term, the justices conducted the case. It appeared probable that the justices would wait until June to issue a ruling after oral arguments. When it arrives, Trump will probably receive some form of immunity, which will make it difficult for the case to go to trial right away.
There is no way to tell for certain which justices opposed to the case when Smith initially requested it, which resisted the DC Circuit ruling, or which dragged their feet and kept the proceedings moving carefully. But judging from oral arguments, it seems obvious that the Trump- appointed justices, as well as those appointed by other Republican presidents, played a vital role.
The hearing provided proof that the Trump appointees were willing to defer Trump’s trial and prosecute a former president significantly more difficult. Both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh argued that the possibility should be limited to various degrees. Amy Coney Barrett remained interested in a deal that would create new immunities despite being little more wary of Trump’s claims of immunity. By the end, the GOP-appointed justices had successfully defended Trump’s immunity claims, making his own lawyer choose not to use his response time. When it was his turn to speak, he joyfully told the court,” I have nothing more.”
There are many people who are held accountable for Trump’s repeated appearance in front of voters without facing charges for trying to overturn the previous election. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who waited for the DOJ to nominate Smith, and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, whose sprawling conspiracy case involving Georgia-based conspiracy took years to put up and may now be entirely derailed as a result of her affair with one of the prosecutors, could be included.
But the person most accountable for escaping legal prosecution is Trump himself, who, in four years as president, left his mark on the nation’s courts. It might serve as a glimpse into how he can avoid being held accountable if he is elected president once more, more than a fluke.”}]] One of the reasons Donald Trump’s trial this month is so distinctive is that it is actually taking place. Before the 2024 elections, it appeared as recently as last summer that Trump would face four legal trials, two of which would be in state court and two in federal court. The New York state hush money case appears to be ongoing right now.
Donald Trump’s trial in this month is notable because it is happening. It was thought that Donald Trump would face four criminal cases before the 2024 elections, two in state courts and two in federal courts. Today, it appears that the New York State hush money case is still pending.
The text is not clear as it consists of punctuation marks and symbols.
