Former President Donald Trump is preparing to deliver one of the closing arguments in his New York financial fraud civil trial on Thursday. A three-judge panel with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals appears highly skeptical of the arguments put forth by one of Trump’s lawyers, who claimed Trump could not be prosecuted for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election because he was acting as president when he did so. Here are the latest developments in the legal cases facing the former president who hopes to be reelected to the White House in 2024.
New York financial fraud
Trump looks to deliver a closing argument in fraud trial
Key players: Judge , New York Attorney General , Trump lawyer
-
Lawyers for Trump have informed Engoron that their client would like to speak during Thursday’s closing arguments of his civil financial fraud trial,.
-
Engoron, who has already ruled Trump, his adult sons and their family business are liable for years of fraudulent business practices, approved of the plan to have the former president speak during closing arguments, which was first reported by .
-
Trump has been harshly critical of Engoron throughout the trial, accusing him of being biased against him and seeking his recusal.
-
James is , who she claims conspired to perpetrate fraud by overvaluing assets to obtain favorable bank loans and insurance rates.
-
Kise has argued that Trump did not commit fraud because the lenders and insurers did not lose money in any of the deals they were involved in with the Trump Org.
-
Engoron will assess whether the defendants were involved in a conspiracy, what role each may have played, and decide on the extent of the civil punishment owed to the state. Engoron has said he will aim to issue a final ruling by the end of the month.
-
Trump is all but certain to appeal.
Why it matters: While Engoron appears poised to issue a stinging judgment against Trump and the other defendants, the former president could seek to control the narrative with a closing speech.
Jan. 6 election interference
Appeals court judges press Trump lawyer on immunity claim
Key players: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Karen Henderson, Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, special counsel Jack Smith, assistant special counsel James Pearce, Trump lawyer D. John Sauer, Judge Tanya Chutkan
-
With Trump looking on in a Washington courtroom, a three-judge appeals court panel pressed the former president’s lawyers on their claims that he is immune from prosecution for his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election because he was still president at the time, USA Today reported.
-
Pan sharply questioned Sauer about whether there were limits to so-called presidential immunity.
-
“You’re saying a president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival,” Pan told Sauer.
-
Sauer responded that in order for Trump to be prosecuted for ordering the assassination of a political rival, he would first need to be impeached and convicted by Congress, because the Supreme Court has found that a president’s official acts are not reviewable by the courts.
-
Trump has argued that he was acting in his official capacity as president when he sought to reverse the results of the 2020 election.
-
“He would have to be, and would speedily be, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution. There is a political process that would have to occur under our Constitution,” Sauer said.
-
Pearce countered, “I think that is an extraordinarily frightening future. I think if we are talking about balancing interests that should weigh extraordinarily heavily in the court’s consideration.”
-
Smith has charged Trump with four felony counts stemming from his efforts to reverse his election loss to Biden. Chutkan previously ruled that presidential immunity does not protect Trump from prosecution, but has paused courtroom proceedings to allow the appeals process to play out.
-
Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, seized on another apparent flaw in the presidential immunity argument. “I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal law,” she said, Politico reported.
-
Even if the appeals court rules against Trump, the issue will likely head to the United States Supreme Court.
Why it matters: A Supreme Court ruling that presidents are protected from prosecution simply because of the stature of their office would effectively give a green light to a commander in chief to carry out actions that previously would have seemed inconceivable, critics say. Trump’s lawyers argue that a decision against presidential immunity would open the door to a flood of lawsuits.
Recommended reading
________________
Monday, Jan. 9
________________
The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejects a request by lawyers for former President Donald Trump for the full court to review whether federal immunity protects him from being sued for defamation by columnist E. Jean Carroll. In Georgia, meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers submit a court filing Monday in Fulton County asking Judge Scott McAfee dismiss the election interference and racketeering charges filed against him by District Attorney Fani Willis on the grounds that he is protected from prosecution because he was president at the time he sought to overturn the 2020 election results. Here’s the latest legal news involving the former president who hopes to be reelected to the White House in 2024.
E. Jean Carroll defamation
Appeals court denies Trump’s request to review immunity defense in civil defamation lawsuit
Key players: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, columnist E. Jean Carroll
-
On Monday, the appeals court declined a request by Trump’s lawyers for a full review of his claim that federal immunity protects him from being sued for defamation by Carroll, according to the one-page ruling released by the court.
-
The latest defeat in the case, which is set to begin on Jan. 16, means that Trump’s last resort to pursue his immunity claim will be the U.S. Supreme Court.
-
A federal judge and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan had already ruled that Trump is not protected by presidential immunity in the case. Trump’s lawyers had requested that the full court of appeals consider the question.
-
Last month, the same court denied a request by Trump’s lawyers for a three-month delay to the start of the second defamation lawsuit brought by Carroll.
-
In May, a jury found that Trump had sexually abused Carroll in a department store changing room in the mid-1990s and later defamed her by denying her account of the attack. They awarded Carroll $5 million in damages, but Trump promptly repeated his assertion that she had lied about the encounter, causing Carroll to file suit again.
Why it matters: Trump’s argument that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution continues to be rejected on appeal, but will ultimately be decided by the highest court in the land.
Georgia election interference
Key players: Judge Scott McAfee, Trump lawyer Steven Sadow, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, special counsel Jack Smith, columnist E. Jean Carroll, former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan
-
In a Monday court filing, Sadow asked McAfee to dismiss all the charges against Trump in Georgia due to the fact that he was president when he sought to overturn the 2020 election results in the state, CBS News reported.
-
“The indictment in this case charges President Trump for acts that lie at the heart of his official responsibilities as President. The indictment is barred by presidential immunity and should be dismissed with prejudice,” the motion stated.
-
Trump’s lawyers have made the same argument — that being president protects one from prosecution — to judges in the civil defamation case brought by Carroll and in the federal election interference case brought by Smith.
-
In a separate filing, Trump’s lawyers wrote that he “lacked fair notice that his advocacy in the instance of the 2020 presidential election could be criminalized.”
-
Monday was the deadline McAfee set for pretrial motions in the case in which Willis charged Trump and 18 others with numerous felonies for their attempts to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the state. So far, four of the defendants have pleaded guilty and agreed to testify for the prosecution at trial.
-
Willis is hoping to start the trial in August. McAfee has yet to establish a firm start date, but last week rebuffed a request by Giuliani to push back deadlines to review evidence in the case.
Why it matters: Trump’s argument that he cannot be prosecuted or sued for actions he undertook while president presents a major test for the U.S. court system. On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear arguments from Smith’s team and Trump’s lawyers on that question. Chutkan and lower courts in New York have already ruled that presidential immunity does not offer him blanket protection, but Chutkan paused the proceedings in the election interference case last month so that Trump’s lawyers could appeal her ruling on presidential immunity. Because of the importance of Tuesday’s hearing, Trump plans to be in attendance.
