No wonder Donald Trump invited the Democrats to dinner. The president has such a poor "personal connection" with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill that reportedly he can't even make small talk with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and finds Paul Ryan a dry "boy scout" with whom he can only exchange pleasantries, sources told Politico Friday.…
As oral arguments began in Donald Trump's presidential immunity case Thursday,the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee is claiming that because he was still president in late 2020 and early 2021, he can’t be prosecuted in special counsel Jack Smith's election interference indictment.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, assigned to Smith's case, has slammed Trump's presidential immunity argument as absurd — ruling that U.S. presidents do not enjoy a "divine right of kings."
But it remains to be seen what the High Court will decide.
Critics of far-right Justice Clarence Thomas have been arguing that because of the role his wife, GOP activist Ginni Thomas, played in Trump's efforts to overturn the 2024 presidential election results, he should recuse himself from the case. Justice Thomas' critics argue that it is a major conflict of interest for him to rule in Trump's immunity case.
READ MORE: Ex-prosecutor: SCOTUS delay in deciding Trump immunity is 'corrosive' to democracy
But CNN's Devan Cole reports that Justice Thomas "has given no sign that he intends to recuse himself."
Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court — a group calling for Supreme Court reforms — believes that Thomas should at least offer an explanation.
Roth told CNN, "I think that's a fairly low bar: you think you're unbiased — OK, tell us why."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has concerns about Thomas' participation in the case as well.
READ MORE: Ex-prosecutor: SCOTUS 'lollygagging' on Trump immunity aids 'denigration of legal system'
The Democratic senator told CNN, "He's still never answered questions about what he knew about his wife's insurrectionist activities as he sat on cases directly involving those activities."
Meanwhile, in a biting opinion column, MSNBC legal writer Jordan Rubin argued that it is unethical for Thomas to not recuse himself from Trump's immunity case.
Thomas' "participation," Rubin warns, is "incredible in a bad way."
"The GOP appointee has ignored calls to recuse himself from January 6-related cases, even though his wife, Ginni, backed efforts to overturn Trump's 2020 election loss," Rubin wrote.
"Notably, Thomas did recuse himself from a rejected petition by MAGA lawyer John Eastman at the beginning of the term in October, though he didn't explain his rationale for doing so. I have made the modest suggestion that he should at least explain his non-recusal in these matters, but the justice has not taken me up on that idea."
The MSNBC legal columnist continued, "Indeed, we saw quite recently that Thomas has no intention of sitting out these cases. At last week's hearing in another January 6 appeal, he pressed the federal government on its prosecutions of rioters, suggesting that they're unfair.
“Given his personal connection to the insurrection and its aftermath, Thomas' involvement in Trump's immunity appeal is even further troubling, due partly to the presently unknown behind-the-scenes moves that led the Court to take up the appeal at all back in February and then not hear it argued sooner."
READ MORE: 'His wife participated': Clarence Thomas urged to recuse himself in Trump immunity case
Read CNN's full report at this link and Jordan Rubin's MSNBC column here.
Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker testified Thursday that he believed Karen McDougal's accusations that she had an extensive affair with Donald Trump.
Law360's Stewart Bishop and Just Security's Adam Klasfeld relayed the specifics, quoting Pecker's statements from the stand as he gave evidence in the hush money trial.
Answering questions from prosecutors, Pecker explained that he had "concerns" about the McDougal story and contacted Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen.
"You should go ahead and buy this story," Cohen said, according to Pecker.
"I am going to have Dylan Howard negotiate the terms," Pecker recalled responding. He then asked: "Who's going to pay for it?"
Pecker claimed Cohen told him: "Don't worry. I'm your friend. The Boss will take care of it."
Read Also: Bad for Trump: No one ever experienced a criminal trial and escaped the ordeal unscathed
He went on to testify that he had concerns about the money.
"I said, 'Michael, why should I pay?'" adding that he told Cohen he'd already paid $30,000 to buy doorman Dino Sajudin's story that claimed Trump had fathered a love child with a Trump Tower maid.
"Now, you’re asking me to pay $150,000 for the Karen story and all of these additional items that she wants to do," Pecker recalled saying.
He then said that Trump called him personally.
"I spoke to Michael. Karen is a nice girl," Pecker said Trump told him.
“He said, ‘What do you think I should do?’ I said we should buy the story and take it off the market," he continued.
“I believed the story was true. I believed it would be very embarrassing to [Trump] ... and also his campaign,” Pecker explained.
John Sauer, an attorney for Donald Trump, told the U.S. Supreme Court that his client could have legally assassinated his rivals.
The arguments were made Thursday during Supreme Court arguments on the U.S. government's election interference case against Trump.
"There are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against," Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted regarding presidential immunity. "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"
"It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act," Sauer replied.
"It could and why?" Sotomayor pushed back. "Because he's doing it for personal reasons. He's not doing it like President Obama is alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist. He's doing it for personal gain."
ALSO READ: Busted: Paul Gosar campaign consultant linked to antisemitism and white nationalism
"And isn't that the nature of the allegations here?" she said. "That he's not doing them, doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility. He's doing it for personal gain."
Sauer said the indictment of Trump "confirms immunity because the characterization is that there's a series of official acts that were done for an unlawful or corrupt person."
"No, because immunity says even if you did it for personal gain, we won't hold you responsible," Sotomayor interrupted. "How could that be?"
The justice noted that "the founders actually talked about whether to grant immunity to the president, and in fact, they had state constitutions that granted some criminal immunity to governors, and yet, they didn't take it up."
"We would be creating a situation in which we would be saying is, this is what you're asking us to say, which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake, but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office," she added. "That's what you're trying to get us to hold without facing criminal liability."
Copyright © 2024 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.
