CNN’s chief legal analyst Elie Honig was back to discuss the Trump immunity ruling, and its impact on the legal cases against the former president. It’s more good news. If anything, it means that there won’t be another trial before Election Day, much the horror and disappointment for liberals who wish to use our legal system for political purposes. Honig is no conservative either, nor is he a Trump fan but his fair analysis has led to him causing heartburn for progressives, and this segment will surely induce another meltdown. At least, I hope it does because the past four days have been amazing.
To recap, let’s circle back to the 6-3 ruling on immunity, which Katie wrote up this morning:
“It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party," the opinion states.
"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," the opinion continues. "At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity."
So, what does this mean for the Trump cases? Honig went down the line, adding that this decision “reshuffles the deck,” and all of it not to the Democrats’ liking.
WATCH: CNN’s @eliehonig on how the Supreme Court’s latest presidential immunity ruling changes the legal landscape when it comes to President Trump’s legal cases:
— Conservative War Machine (@WarMachineRR) July 1, 2024
“This completely reshuffles the deck with respect to all FOUR of the pending criminal cases.” pic.twitter.com/V0hCyHfDgt
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 2020 election interference case goes back to the lower court, which need to hold a new hearing to determine what actions were in the scope of official capacity or not, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling. Last Friday, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Fischer case essentially gutted the felony counts of obstructing an official proceeding for Trump and hundreds of January 6 defendants. Jonathan Turley, a law professor for George Washington University, added last week that this decision ripped the wings of this indictment. The Court also instructed the district court to review these counts as well.
In the classified document case, Trump has argued immunity regarding how he obtained these documents, a bit more of a stretch in Honig’s opinion, but Trump did acquire them via intelligence briefings and the like as president.
In Georgia, that case has come off its wheels for a variety of reasons unrelating to the Supreme Court, but the crux deals with alleged felonies committed when Trump was president. They’re going to have to review the charges there, given this decision as well, adding further delays.
Honig then said that it wouldn’t shock him if Trump’s legal team file a motion to vacate the guilty verdict in the hush money case. Some of the evidence in that case included discussions Trump had with aides, including former communications director Hope Hicks, while he was in office.
Trump’s legal team could go on a full-throated legal offensive on all four fronts, especially in Manhattan.
Teflon Don is back.
***
UPDATE: Trump's legal team has filed a motion to suspend sentencing and vacate the verdict (via NBC News):
Attorneys for Donald Trump indicated in a letter to the presiding judge in the former president's hush money case that they want him to postpone sentencing and set aside the trial verdict following the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling Monday.
The lawyers said they want to brief New York state Judge Juan Merchan on the relevance of the high court’s immunity decision and an argument that the decision confirmed that the Manhattan district attorney should not have been able to offer evidence at trial concerning Trump’s official acts as president.
Trump’s attorneys are seeking to throw out his conviction 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and postpone next week’s sentencing, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member