Mediaboss Marketing

The Supreme Court declined on Friday to decide for now whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.

The decision to defer consideration of a central issue in the case was a major practical victory for Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have consistently sought to delay criminal cases against him around the country.

It is unclear what the courts order will mean for the timing of the trial, which is scheduled to start on March 4, though it makes postponement more likely. The case will now move forward in an appeals court, which has put it on a fast track, and most likely return to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks or months.

In denying review, the justices gave no reasons, which is typical, and there were no noted dissents.

Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting Mr. Trump, had asked the justices to move with extraordinary speed, bypassing the appeals court.

Any significant delays could plunge the trial into the heart of the 2024 campaign season or push it past the election, when Mr. Trump could order the charges be dropped if he wins the presidency.

A speedy decision by the justices was of the essence, Mr. Smith said in his petition seeking immediate Supreme Court review, because Mr. Trumps appeal of a trial judges ruling rejecting his claim of immunity suspended the criminal trial.

Mr. Smith wrote that the case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.

The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request, Mr. Smith added. This is an extraordinary case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has put the case on a brisk schedule, ordering expedited briefing and scheduling arguments for Jan. 9.

The case will be heard by a three-member panel made up of Judge Karen L. Henderson, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and Judges Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs, who were both appointed by President Biden.

The panel will probably issue a prompt decision. If Mr. Trump loses, he could ask the full appeals court to rehear the case. In the end, the losing side will in all likelihood return to the Supreme Court.

The trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, rejected Mr. Trumps sweeping claims that he had absolute immunity from the election interference indictment because it was based on actions he took while in office. She has since suspended proceedings in the case while an appeal moves forward.

Mr. Smith urged the justices to move fast: The public importance of the issues, the imminence of the scheduled trial date and the need for a prompt and final resolution of respondents immunity claims counsel in favor of this courts expedited review at this time.

Mr. Trumps lawyers took the opposite view, asking the justices to follow the usual procedure by letting the appeals court consider the matter first.

Importance does not automatically necessitate speed, Mr. Trumps brief said. If anything, the opposite is usually true. Novel, complex, sensitive and historic issues such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts call for more careful deliberation, not less.

Mr. Smith called that approach misguided.

The public interest in a prompt resolution of this case favors an immediate, definitive decision by this court, he wrote. The charges here are of the utmost gravity. This case involves for the first time in our nations history criminal charges against a former president based on his actions while in office.

And not just any actions: alleged acts to perpetuate himself in power by frustrating the constitutionally prescribed process for certifying the lawful winner of an election, Mr. Smith added.

Mr. Trumps lawyers countered that the case, and Mr. Smiths desire to resolve it promptly, was driven by political considerations.

He confuses the public interest with the manifest partisan interest in ensuring that President Trump will be subjected to a monthslong criminal trial at the height of a presidential campaign where he is the leading candidate and the only serious opponent of the current administration, the brief said.

The two sides rely on precedents that point in opposite directions, both involving President Richard M. Nixon.

In 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the court ruled that Nixon, then still in office, had to comply with a trial subpoena seeking tapes of his conversations in the Oval Office, rejecting his claims of executive privilege.

Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote.

Eight years later, in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the court voted 5 to 4 in favor of Nixon in a civil case brought by an Air Force analyst who said he was fired in 1970 in retaliation for his criticism of cost overruns. By the time the court acted, Nixon had been out of office for several years.

In view of the special nature of the presidents constitutional office and functions, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote for the majority, we think it appropriate to recognize absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.

The Supreme Court will soon confront a different question arising from the aftermath of the 2020 election. On Tuesday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Trump is not eligible to be on the primary ballot in that state under a provision of the Constitution that bars officials who have engaged in insurrection from holding office. Mr. Trump has said he will appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court.

Alan Feuer contributed reporting.

Read the original here:
Supreme Court Won't Hear Case on Trump's Immunity Defense for Now - The New York Times

Tags:

Donald Trump 'Could Be Finished' Within Matter of Days  Newsweek

Read more:
Donald Trump 'Could Be Finished' Within Matter of Days - Newsweek

Tags:

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump cannot appear on the states Republican presidential primary ballot next year because he is disqualified for engaging in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol.

The stunning 4-3 decision is almost certain to be immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and is likely to have national ripple effects. Similar lawsuits seeking to block Trump from appearing on presidential primary ballots have been filed in other parts of the country, but no others have been successful.

The Colorado Supreme Court stayed its ruling until Jan. 4 to give the U.S. Supreme Court time to weigh in.

Colorados presidential primary ballot must be set by Jan. 5. Ballots start being mailed to military and overseas voters on Jan. 20. Election Day is March 5.

We do not reach these conclusions lightly, Justices Monica Mrquez, William Hood, Richard Gabriel and Melissa Hart wrote in the courts 132-page majority opinion. We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us. We are likewise mindful of our solemn duty to apply the law, without fear or favor, and without being swayed by public reaction to the decisions that the law mandates we reach.

Chief Justice Brian Boatright and Justices Maria Berkenkotter and Carlos Samour Jr. dissented.

All seven justices on the Colorado Supreme Court were appointed by Democratic governors.

In a written statement, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung called the courts ruling completely flawed and vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits, Cheung said.

Electorally speaking, Colorado is unimportant in the 2024 presidential race. Trump lost to President Joe Biden in Colorado by 13 percentage points in 2020 and polls show he remains deeply unpopular in the state.

But the Colorado Supreme Courts ruling means that Trumps bid next year may hinge on Colorado. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Colorado Supreme Court decision, Trump could be disqualified from appearing on the Republican presidential primary ballot in other states.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal political nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., sued Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold in September on behalf of a group of Colorado Republican and unaffiliated voters, arguing that the former president shouldnt be allowed on the states presidential primary ballot because of his role in the Jan. 6 attack.

The nonprofit, which doesnt reveal its donors, claimed that Trump violated the so-called insurrection clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars officers of the United States who took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof from holding federal or state office again.

The lawsuit was first heard in Denver District Court, where Judge Sarah Wallace ruled Nov. 17 that while Trump incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, he can still appear on Colorados 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot because he is not an officer of the United States.

Part of the courts decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section 3, she wrote.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington appealed the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing that a president is an officer of the United States. Trumps 2024 campaign also appealed, seeking to invalidate Wallaces finding that Trump incited an insurrection on the argument state courts dont have the power to rule on 14th Amendment challenges.

The Colorado Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on Dec. 6. The courts justices seemed to struggle with whether the 14th Amendment applies to former presidents.

Gabriel said it seemed absurd that drafters of the 14th Amendment wouldnt have meant it to apply to presidents. Justice Monica Mrquez said in her readings of the case law, she saw no rational reason for that type of an exclusion.

But Samour said it seemed odd that the presidents and vice presidents werent specifically called out in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, the so-called insurrection clause.

If it was so important that the president be included, why not spell it out? he asked before packed chambers in downtown Denver, echoing the legal ambiguity on which the lower courts ruling hinged.

But the majority of the Colorado Supreme Court found Tuesday that Wallace was wrong and that the 14th Amendment does apply to former presidents.

President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land, the courts majority opinion said. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.

The majority also found that state courts do have jurisdiction in the case.

Were we to adopt President Trumps view, Colorado could not exclude from the ballot even candidates who plainly do not satisfy the age, residency and citizenship requirements of the Presidential Qualifications Clause, the majority wrote in its opinion. It would mean that the state would be powerless to exclude a 28-year-old, a nonresident of the United States, or even a foreign national from the presidential primary ballot in Colorado.

Finally, the majority ruled that Trump engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6.

The record amply established that the events of Jan. 6 constituted a concerted and public use of force or threat of force by a group of people to hinder or prevent the U.S. government from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the peaceful transfer of power in this country, the courts majority wrote. Under any viable definition, this constituted an insurrection.

The majority also wrote that Trump did not merely incite the insurrection.

Even when the siege on the Capitol was fully underway, he continued to support it by repeatedly demanding that Vice President (Mike) Pence refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electoral votes, the majority wrote. These actions constituted overt, voluntary and direct participation in the insurrection.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruling marks the first time that the insurrection clause has been used to block a presidential candidate from appearing on the ballot.

We of course know that the (U.S.) Supreme Court is the likely destination for this decision and were ready to present our arguments, Eric Olson, an attorney for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNN on Tuesday night.

The plaintiffs in the Colorado case include Krista Kafer, a Republican activist and political commentator in Colorado; Norma Anderson, a Republican who was formerly the majority leader in the Colorado Senate; Michelle Priola, the wife of state Sen. Kevin Priola, who switched his party affiliation to Democratic from Republican in 2022; and Chris Castilian, former chief of staff for then-Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican.

Mario Nicolais, a Colorado Sun opinion columnist, is one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.

In a written statement, Anderson said the Colorado Supreme Courts ruling ensures that Republican presidential primary voters in the state are only casting ballots for eligible candidates.

Long before this lawsuit was filed, I had already read Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and concluded that it applied to Donald Trump, given his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, she said. I am proud to be a petitioner, and gratified that the Colorado Supreme Court arrived at the same conclusion we all did.

Griswolds office took a neutral legal stance on the case. But after Wallaces ruling last month, the Democrat, in TV appearances, expressed shock at the outcome.

The idea that any official who would engage in insurrection would be barred from taking office except the presidency is incredibly surprising, she said on MSNBC last month. That basically means that the presidency is a get-out-of-jail free card for insurrection.

Griswold said in a written statement Tuesday that her office will follow court guidance in a nod to how the Colorado Supreme Courts decision is likely to be appealed.

In an 11-page dissent, Boatright, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, wrote that Colorados election code was not enacted to decide whether a candidate engaged in insurrection. Instead, the state code lays out qualifications based on objective, discernible facts, such as a candidates age, time previously served as president and place of birth.

Those all pale in comparison with the complexity of an action to disqualify a candidate for engaging in insurrection, Boatright wrote .

Boatright said the Colorado law requires that any challenges to a candidates eligibility be heard at a breakneck pace, giving the defendant little time to prepare a defense and making the statute ill-suited for a claim of such gravity. This speed comes with consequences, namely, the absence of procedures that courts, litigants, and the public would expect for complex constitutional litigation, he wrote.

Samour, building off of Boatrights dissent, wrote in his 43-page dissent that he worries about due process given the speed of the case.

I recognize the need to defend and protect our democracy against those who seek to undermine the peaceful transfer of power, Samour wrote. And I embrace the judiciarys solemn role in upholding and applying the law. But that solemn role necessarily includes ensuring our courts afford everyone who comes before them (in criminal and civil proceedings alike) due process of law.

Berkenkotter, the newest member of the Colorado Supreme Court, wrote in a separate 25-page dissent that Colorados election code does not give authority to state courts to litigate presidential candidates eligibility beyond a candidate declaring they are a bonafide candidate, submitting a notarized statement of intent and paying $500 or submitting a write-in petition.

She said if the legislature wants state courts to have the power to adjudicate 14th Amendment challenges, it should do so by amending the election code. I just think it needs to say so, she wrote.

Other Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Colorados primary ballot include Florida Gov.Ron DeSantis, former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov.Nikki Haley, former New Jersey Gov.Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov.Asa Hutchinsonand entrepreneurVivek Ramaswamy.

Dave Williams, a Trump ally and chair of the Colorado GOP, said the party would move to withdraw from the states presidential primary if Trump isnt allowed to appear on the ballot. He said the GOP would select delegates to the Republican National Convention through the states caucus process instead.

If the state refuses to let Republicans withdraw from the primary, we will ignore the primary results, Williams said.

Colorado Sun staff writer Brian Eason contributed to this report. Colorado Sun editors Lance Benzel and Dana Coffield also contributed to this report.

Colorado Supreme Court: See Anderson v. Griswold, Dec. 19, 2023. Source link.

Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

See the original post here:
Donald Trump blocked from appearing on presidential primary ballot by Colorado Supreme Court - The Colorado Sun

Tags:

The political network founded by the billionaire industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch has endorsed Nikki Haley in the Republican presidential nominating contest, giving her organizational muscle and financial heft as she battles Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida to be the top rival to former President Donald J. Trump.

The group announced its plans in a memo on Tuesday.

The commitment by the network, Americans for Prosperity Action, bolsters Ms. Haley as the campaign enters the final seven weeks before the Iowa caucuses. Since the first Republican primary debate, Ms. Haley has steadily climbed in polls, even as Mr. DeSantis has slipped. Mr. Trump remains the dominant front-runner in the race.

In sharp contrast to recent elections that were dominated by the negative baggage of Donald Trump and in which good candidates lost races that should have been won, Nikki Haley, at the top of the ticket, would boost candidates up and down the ballot, reads the memo from Emily Seidel, a senior adviser to Americans for Prosperity Action, who adds that Ms. Haley would win the key independent and moderate voters that Trump has no chance to win.

The memo goes on to say that the country is being ripped apart by extremes on both sides, adding: The moment we face requires a tested leader with the governing judgment and policy experience to pull our nation back from the brink. Nikki Haley is that leader.

The group laid out polling describing the shift in the race toward Ms. Haley in a separate memo. On a separate call with reporters, the senior adviser who presented the polling, Michael Palmer, said that Mr. DeSantiss support over the course of the year had dropped precipitously.

Ms. Haley, who has described Mr. Trumps time as past, has gained support from donors and elite opinion-makers, many of whom describe her as the best alternative to Mr. Trump.

But Ms. Haleys campaign does not have the organizational strength that Mr. DeSantis does, thanks to work the super PAC affiliated with his campaign has been doing for much of the year.

The endorsement from the super PAC established by the Koch brothers could help change that. It will give her access to a direct-mail operation, field workers to knock on doors and people making phone calls to prospective voters in Iowa and beyond. The group has money to spend on television advertisements, as well.

Im honored to have the support of Americans for Prosperity Action, including its millions of grass-roots members all across the country, Ms. Haley said in a statement. A.F.P. Actions members know that there is too much at stake in this election to sit on the sidelines.

The Koch networks backing helps fuel Ms. Haleys momentum heading into the final weeks before voting begins. And its a blow to Mr. DeSantis as he tries to maintain to donors that he is the only person who can beat Mr. Trump if the contest eventually whittles down to the former president and one other contestant.

Americans for Prosperity Action has been among the countrys largest spenders on anti-Trump material this year, buying online ads and sending mailers to voters in several states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. All told, the group has spent more than $9 million in independent expenditures opposing Mr. Trump.

One mailer in Iowa, paid for by the group, shows images of Mr. Trump and President Biden and reads, You can stop Biden by letting go of Trump.

But so far, none of that spending has benefited any of Mr. Trumps rivals, who have been busy battling one another.

The Koch network is well financed, raising more than $70 million for political races as of this summer. On a press call about the endorsement, officials declined to say how much money they would budget toward helping Ms. Haley.

The group has been committed to opposing Mr. Trumps return as leader of the Republican Party. In a memo in February, Ms. Seidel, who also serves as the president of Americans for Prosperity, the political networks parent group, wrote: We need to turn the page on the past. So the best thing for the country would be to have a president in 2025 who represents a new chapter.

Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trumps campaign, said in a statement, Americans for Prosperity the political arm of the China First, America Last movement has chosen to endorse a pro-China, open borders, and globalist candidate in Nikki Birdbrain Haley, adding that no amount of shady money would stop Mr. Trump from winning the Republican nomination and the election.

Over the past few years, the Koch network has spent tens of millions of dollars opposing the foreign policy views that Ms. Haley has espoused. She has been among the most hawkish in the Republican presidential field on aid to Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion, while the Koch-backed group Concerned Veterans for America has opposed American involvement in that conflict.

Ms. Haley has also criticized the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, a policy change that the Koch network campaigned aggressively to bring about. And she has advocated military strikes in Iran, while the Koch foreign policy operation has opposed military action against the country.

Mr. DeSantiss campaign has had upheaval in recent days, including the resignation of the chief executive of his super PAC. Mr. DeSantis, who has polled solidly in second place behind Mr. Trump since he entered the race this year, has seen his standing drop in surveys. He has struggled to connect with voters, and efforts to lift him including a recent endorsement by Iowas governor, Kim Reynolds have yielded little return in polling.

His team tried to throw cold water on the endorsement before it was even announced.

Every dollar spent on Nikki Haleys candidacy should be reported as an in-kind to the Trump campaign, Andrew Romeo, a DeSantis campaign spokesman, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, 30 minutes before the press call.

No one has a stronger record of beating the establishment than Ron DeSantis, and this time will be no different, he wrote.

Original post:
Koch Network Endorses Nikki Haley in Bid to Push G.O.P. Past Trump - The New York Times

Donald Trump's brain might need a sharp shot of covfefe (or something like it), according to The View cohost and former White House staffer Alyssa Farah Griffin.

The 34-year-old Republican cohost criticized her ex-boss' cognition on Tuesday's episode of the long-running talk show, after moderator Whoopi Goldberg pointed out that Trump is a "couple of steps slower on the campaign trail" amid several "mental lapses" including his claim that "Obama is Biden's boss" and mistakenly referring to Sioux City as "Sioux Falls" despite being within the Iowa city's limits at the time.

Sunny Hostin immediately threw the Hot Topics discussion to Griffin, calling her "the expert" on Trump's behavior after she worked for the former president's communications team throughout 2020.

ABC; OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTOGRAPH ARCHIVES

"He is not as sharp as he was in 2016, and many of us would argue that he wasn't that sharp then. You see a real decline in him. It's a fact you can't get past," Griffin said. "Our country is so polarized that Trump supporters see that and they don't think a thing about it. It doesn't really affect them. [They say] 'he's my tough guy, he's my fighter,' but they see any gaffe of Joe Biden's, and Joe Biden is 'aging' and he's 'too old.' It's a Rorschach test of where the country is."

Griffin also noted that Trump, 77, and Biden, who turned 81 on Nov. 20, are only about three years apart in age, though Hostin observed that "one rides a bike and one eats cheeseburgers" into their older years. Hostin also called Trump's incessant invocations of Barack Obama as a "dog whistle" or rallying cry for racists among his voting base.

EW has reached out to Trump's office for comment.

After resigning from Trump's communications team in 2020, Griffin has long spoken out against him, including calling him "reckless and unpredictable" at an Oct. 30 speaking event in New York City. She was even interviewed earlier in 2023 by federal prosecutors in a probe into the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

Secretary of State and Trump's main opponent in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, also appeared on The View in early November to caution the country against voting for Trump in 2024, predicting that a second-term Trump presidency would be "the end of our country."

The Viewairs weekdays at 11 a.m. ET onABC.

Sign up forEntertainment Weekly's free daily newsletterto get breaking TV news, exclusive first looks, recaps, reviews, interviews with your favorite stars, and more.

Related content:

The rest is here:
'The View' star criticizes former boss Donald Trump's mental decline - Entertainment Weekly News