Supreme Court sceptical of nd Trump’s claim of immunity
The US Supreme Court last night appeared likely to reject former president Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution over election interference, but it seemed possible he could still benefit from a lengthy trial delay, possibly beyond November’s election.
Chief Justice John Roberts was among at least five members of the court who did not appear to embrace the claim of absolute immunity that wouldstopspecialcounseljack Smith’s prosecution of Trump on charges he conspired to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
But in arguments lasting more than two and a half hours hours in the court’s first consideration of criminal charges against a former president, Mr Roberts also was among several justices who suggested that the case might have to be sent back to lower courts before any trial could begin.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision could be as important as the outcome, with no indication last night as to when the ruling would be announced.
Trump,thepresumptive2024 Republican presidential nominee, has been pushing to delay the trial until after the election, and the later the justices issue their decision, the more likely he is to succeed.
The active questioning of all nine justices left the strong impression that the court was not headed for the sort of speedy, consensus decision that would allow a trial to begin quickly.
The hearing in Washington came as Trump sat in a New Yorkcitycourtroom–whilethe former president also faces a loomingdecisionoverwhether heviolatedagagorderimposed by the judge.
Veteran tabloid publisher David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, gave evidence at Trump’s hush moneytrialaboutgoingtogreat lengths to help shield his old friend from potentially damaging stories, using a catch-andkill scheme prosecutors allege amounted to interference in the2016presidentialcampaign. Mr Pecker described shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy up rights to potentially damaging stories for Trump.
Mr Pecker explained how he and his publication leveraged his connections to suppress seamy stories about Trump, including a porn actress’s claim of an extramarital sexual encounter years earlier.
His evidence was a critical building block for the prosecution’s theory that the partnership was a way to illegally influence the election.
Mr Pecker also gave evidence that he put his foot down on additional payments after the magazine was $180,000 (£144,000) in the hole for Trump-related transactions.
The publication had bought upasordidtalefromanewyork City doorman and purchased accusations of an extramarital affair with a former Playboy model.
The breaking point for Mr Pecker came with Stormy Daniels, the porn actor who was eventually paid by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, to keep quiet over her claim of a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. The ex-president denies it happened.
The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision could be as important as the outcome