Supreme Court's Ruling on Presidential Immunity: What it Means for Trump's Cases and US Foreign Policy

Washington D.C., District of Columbia United States of America
Broad immunity granted to presidents for official acts
Impact on Trump's hush money case
Potential implications for US foreign policy
Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity
Supreme Court's Ruling on Presidential Immunity: What it Means for Trump's Cases and US Foreign Policy

In recent developments, the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity has sparked controversy and raised concerns about its potential implications for ongoing legal cases involving former President Donald Trump. The court's decision, which grants presidents broad immunity for official acts, has been met with skepticism from legal experts and politicians alike.

One of the most significant cases affected by this ruling is the hush money case against Trump in New York. The former president was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign. However, following the Supreme Court's decision, Trump's lawyers have argued that the jury should not have been allowed to consider evidence from his former top communications aide, Hope Hicks, regarding conversations that occurred during Trump's time in the White House.

Despite this long shot bid to overturn the conviction, Judge Juan Merchan has delayed Trump's sentencing until September. The judge now faces the challenge of applying the Supreme Court's new test for presidential immunity to Trump's case.

Beyond its impact on specific cases, the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity has also raised concerns about its potential ramifications for US foreign policy. As the president also serves as the head of the military, some experts fear that this decision could further strengthen a culture of impunity for actions taken abroad.

The term 'imperial presidency' describes a perception among some historians that the US presidency has exceeded its constitutionally mandated powers, particularly in overseas actions like warfare. The Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity may contribute to this trend by expanding the president's ability to act without fear of legal consequences.

Despite these concerns, it is important to note that the Constitution does not grant presidents absolute immunity once they leave office. In fact, former presidents are subject to ordinary criminal prosecution according to the text of the Constitution. However, Monday's ruling in Trump v. United States allows evidence of quid and quo in a bribery case but not evidence of the pro (unconstitutional motive).

The Nixon-tapes case, which resulted in a unanimous no-man-is-above-the-law ruling against the president, made clear that presidential conversations with top aides are admissible when part of a criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. United States failed to uphold this precedent and instead split along partisan lines.

As we move forward, it is crucial for the legal system to maintain its independence and ensure that no one, not even a former president, is above the law.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

75%

Doubts
  • Are there any potential unintended consequences of this ruling on US foreign policy that have not yet been considered?
  • How might the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States affect future cases involving former presidents?

Sources

95%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Could Trump get hush money conviction overturned with SCOTUS immunity ruling?

New York Post Kyle Schnitzer, Wednesday, 03 July 2024 19:16
  • Unique Points
    • Donald Trump is attempting to overturn his Manhattan hush money conviction using the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.
    • Trump’s lawyers argue that jurors were improperly allowed to hear testimony from his former top communications aide Hope Hicks about conversations that occurred during Trump’s time in the White House.
  • Accuracy
    • Donald Trump is attempting to overturn his Manhattan hush money conviction using the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity.
    • The high court's decision dealt a blow to the federal election-interference case against Trump but has little chance of overturning his Manhattan conviction.
    • Trump's lawyers argue that jurors were improperly allowed to hear testimony from his former top communications aide Hope Hicks about conversations that occurred during Trump's time in the White House.
    • Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has left open the possibility of vacating the jury's verdict, but legal experts believe it's unlikely as covering up payments to a porn star is not considered part of a president's official duties.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

76%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

What could the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling mean for US foreign policy?

Al Jazeera Media Network Brian Osgood Thursday, 04 July 2024 02:11
  • Unique Points
    • The Supreme Court’s decision to expand presidential immunity has raised concerns among legal experts about the potential ramifications for US foreign policy.
    • The president also serves as the head of the military, and Monday’s decision could further strengthen a culture of impunity for actions taken abroad.
    • The term ‘imperial presidency’ describes a perception among some historians that the US presidency has exceeded its constitutionally mandated powers, particularly in overseas actions like warfare.
  • Accuracy
    • Former President Donald Trump asserted far-reaching claims to presidential immunity to dodge criminal indictments in US courts.
    • The court held that any act deemed an ‘Official’ part of the presidency could be shielded from criminal charges, potentially heralding ‘king-like’ executive powers with few criminal constraints.
  • Deception (30%)
    The article contains editorializing and pontification by the author, as well as selective reporting. The author expresses their opinion that the Supreme Court's decision to expand presidential immunity could further strengthen a culture of impunity for actions taken abroad. They quote Samuel Moyn stating that Monday's decision takes the attitude of not recognizing international courts outside of the country and applies it to courts inside the country as well. The author also selectively reports on certain aspects of the case, such as former President Trump's claims to presidential immunity and Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, while ignoring other important details. For example, they do not mention that the court acknowledged that this ruling could herald 'king-like executive powers with few criminal constraints.'
    • Already, the US Congress gives presidents wide latitude to take actions overseas, and the country refuses to recognize the authority of bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC).
    • But in the US, the president also serves as the head of the military, and experts say Monday’s decision could further strengthen a culture of impunity for actions taken abroad.
    • But such stabs at oversight proved to be the exception rather than the rule, and presidents have historically faced few consequences for overseas actions that could constitute violations of international and domestic law.
    • From this day forward, Presidents of tomorrow will be free to exercise the Commander-in-Chief powers, the foreign-affairs powers, and all the vast law enforcement powers enshrined in [the US Constitution] however they please – including in ways that Congress has deemed criminal.
    • The United States Supreme Court's decision to expand presidential immunity has caused alarm among legal experts, who fear the ramifications may extend beyond the country's borders.
  • Fallacies (80%)
    The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting legal experts and historians to support his argument about the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. However, no formal fallacies were found in the text.
    • ]The country's appetite for reining in the White House continued to diminish after the September 11 attacks, according to experts like Moyn.[/
    • Experts say these defence and intelligence groups helped the US wage a global campaign to expand its influence, sometimes through clandestine operations and even torture and assassination.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

61%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Something Has Gone Deeply Wrong at the Supreme Court

The Atlantic Magazine Akhil Reed Tuesday, 02 July 2024 20:55
  • Unique Points
    • The Supreme Court made a decision in the case Trump v. United States that contradicts the Constitution’s text and structure.
    • Chief Justice John Roberts and five associate justices declared that courts may not inquire into a president’s motives.
    • Once a president is removed from office, they are subject to ordinary criminal prosecution according to the Constitution’s text.
    • The Court’s opinion in Trump v. United States allows evidence of the quid (money) and quo (official act) in a bribery case but not evidence of the pro (unconstitutional motive).
    • John Roberts, who has previously stated that there are no Republican or Democratic justices, failed to pull sides together in Trump v. United States as the Court split along partisan lines.
    • The Nixon-tapes case resulted in a unanimous no-man-is-above-the-law ruling against the president and made clear that presidential conversations with top aides are admissible when part of a criminal conspiracy.
  • Accuracy
    • ]The Supreme Court made a decision in the case Trump v. Unitedited States that contradicts the Constitution’s text and structure.[
    • Chief Justice John Roberts and five associate justices declared that courts may not inquire into a president’s motives.[
    • Once a president is removed from office, they are subject to ordinary criminal prosecution according to the Constitution’s text.[
  • Deception (35%)
    The author makes editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation by implying that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States is a threat to the Constitution and the rule of law. The author also engages in selective reporting by focusing on certain aspects of the case while ignoring others, such as the fact that both parties agreed that evidence of quid pro quo bribery should be admissible but disagreed on whether evidence of motive could be considered. The author's reasoning is based on his interpretation and opinion rather than objective facts.
    • The Court in Trump v. United States is declaring the Constitution itself unconstitutional.
    • Imagine a simple hypothetical designed to highlight the key constitutional clauses that should have been the Court’s starting point:
    • This is astonishing, because the impressive jurist who shone in this oral exchange was none other than the chief justice himself.
  • Fallacies (80%)
    The author commits an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the Constitution multiple times and implying that the Court's decision is in direct contradiction to it. However, the author fails to provide any formal logical argument or reasoning as to why the Court's decision is indeed a contradiction of the Constitution.
    • The Constitution expressly vests this power in the president: 'The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.'
    • But the Constitution also contains express language that a president who takes a bribe can be impeached for bribery and then booted from office: 'The President ... shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
    • The smoking gun may well be in Jones’ diary – her ‘private records’ – or in a recorded Oval Office conversation with Jones’ advisers.
  • Bias (15%)
    The author, Akhil Reed Amar, demonstrates clear ideological bias in his article 'Something Has Gone Deeply Wrong at the Supreme Court'. He criticizes the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States and accuses the justices of declaring the Constitution itself unconstitutional. The author argues that evidence of a president's motivations for official actions should be allowed in both impeachment trials and criminal cases, but the court's opinion states that courts may not inquire into a president's motives. Amar also criticizes the justices for splitting along partisan lines and failing to uphold nonpartisan justice and the rule of law.
    • evidence that the pardon was given because of the money, that the pardon was motivated by the money. This is absurd.
      • No one should be above the law... Because the Constitution itself is our highest law, jurists across the spectrum must prioritize that document's letter and spirit above all else.
        • The Court in Trump v. Unitedited States is declaring the Constitution itself unconstitutional.
          • Yet Roberts failed to pull these sides together.
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          98%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court's immunity decision

          The Associated Press News Wednesday, 03 July 2024 21:56
          • Unique Points
            • Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York is proposing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling
            • The amendment aims to reverse the decision and ensure that no president is above the law
            • Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their official duties
            • This decision throws into doubt cases against Trump, including his efforts to overturn the 2020 election
          • Accuracy
            • Trump and his allies celebrated the ruling and delayed sentencing for a felony conviction in New York state court
            • The outcome ensures federal cases against Trump will not be resolved before the November election
          • Deception (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Fallacies (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication

          89%

          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

          Following Supreme Court ruling, what happens next in Trump's criminal hush money case?

          ABC NEWS SITE NAMES Name: ABC News Site Names URL: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-officially-blames-iran_106834435 ABC News Thursday, 04 July 2024 02:15
          • Unique Points
            • Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
            • Judge Juan Merchan delayed Trump’s sentencing until September following the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.
          • Accuracy
            • Judge Juan Merchan delayed Trump's sentencing until September following the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity.
            • Trump's lawyers argue that the judge should
            • The high court's decision dealt a blow to the federal election-interference case against Trump but has little chance of overturning his Manhattan conviction.
          • Deception (80%)
            The article provides detailed information about the ongoing legal case against Donald Trump for falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. The author does not make any editorializing or pontification statements, and there is no emotional manipulation or sensationalism present in the article. However, there are instances of selective reporting as some evidence related to official acts was emphasized during the trial while other evidence was not mentioned. For example, the article focuses on Trump's tweets and phone records but does not mention any evidence presented by the defense or witnesses testifying on Trump's behalf. Additionally, there is a lack of disclosure regarding sources used in the article.
            • Prosecutors introduced some of Trump’s tweets about his former lawyer Michael Cohen to emphasize what they called a ‘pressure campaign’ to prevent him from cooperating with investigators in 2018.
            • Former U.S. President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign event in Philadelphia, June 22, 2024.
          • Fallacies (85%)
            The author makes several appeals to authority by quoting legal experts and former prosecutors. While this is not a fallacy in itself, it can be misleading if the reader assumes that these experts' opinions are definitive or unbiased. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing some testimony as 'devastating' and putting 'the nail in Mr. Trump's coffin.' This language is not objective and can influence the reader's perception of the evidence presented in the trial.
            • ][author] Some experts suggested that the evidence highlighted by Trump in a March pretrial motion -- such as tweets about Cohen -- were unlikely to have influenced the verdict. [[/...]] However, prosecutors themselves placed emphasis on Hicks’ testimony when urging jurors to convict the former president -- potentially creating an issue if the testimony is deemed to be protected by immunity.[/
          • Bias (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication