Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Has 'Absolute Immunity' from Criminal Prosecution for Official Acts During Presidency

Washington D.C., District of Columbia United States of America
Case centers around Trump's efforts to subvert 2020 election results and obstruct congressional proceedings.
Former President Donald Trump faces Supreme Court hearing on April 25, 2024, regarding his claim to 'absolute immunity' from criminal prosecution for official acts during presidency.
Outcome could have significant implications for future presidents.
Question of presidential immunity after leaving office has never been definitively answered by Supreme Court.
Trump argues these actions were official duties and cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution.
Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Has 'Absolute Immunity' from Criminal Prosecution for Official Acts During Presidency

Former President Donald Trump is facing a significant legal day on Thursday, April 25, 2024, as the Supreme Court hears arguments on his claim to 'absolute immunity' from criminal prosecution for any official acts committed during his presidency. The case centers around Trump's efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 election and is a test for presidential power and immunity after leaving office.

The Supreme Court will consider whether Trump can be held liable for actions taken while in office, including seeking to recruit bogus slates of electors, pressuring officials like Vice President Mike Pence to alter vote counts, and obstructing congressional proceedings. Trump's legal team argues that these actions were official duties and thus cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution.

The question of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution after leaving office has never been definitively answered by the Supreme Court. Previous presidents, such as Richard Nixon, have faced allegations but were not prosecuted while in office. Once Nixon resigned, he accepted a pardon from President Gerald Ford rather than face charges.

Trump's argument for immunity is broader and contends that he cannot be prosecuted ever for his official acts as president unless impeached, convicted by the Senate, and removed from office. The Supreme Court case is not only a test for presidential immunity but also a test for the court itself on both substance and timing.

Trump's definition of a protected official act is broad, encompassing an order given by the commander in chief to the military. In February, a three-judge appeals court panel ruled against Trump on the immunity question and he then appealed to the Supreme Court. Trump will not be present at the Supreme Court hearing but is required to attend his New York trial on charges related to falsifying business records.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future presidents, as it may determine whether they are immune from prosecution after leaving office. The 2024 election will take place in the shadow of the criminal justice system, with Trump's trial potentially influencing voter perceptions and decisions.


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

91%

Doubts
  • It is unclear how the Supreme Court will define 'official acts' and what actions fall under this category.
  • The ruling could potentially set a dangerous precedent for future presidents.

Sources

73%

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

Trump faces critical legal day in hush money trial and before the Supreme Court

CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language Stephen Collinson Thursday, 25 April 2024 04:00
  • Unique Points
    • Trump faces a hush money trial and a Supreme Court immunity case on the same day.
    • Trump has left no doubt he would prefer to be at the Supreme Court hearing rather than his hush money trial.
  • Accuracy
    • ][The Supreme Court will consider on Thursday whether former President Donald J. Trump must face trial on charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election.][][Trump faces a hush money trial and a Supreme Court immunity case on the same day.]
  • Deception (30%)
    The article contains editorializing and sensationalism. The author uses phrases like 'double court date', 'unfathomable twist', 'saga of the presumptive Republican nominee who is again stretching America's judicial and constitutional systems to their limits as he runs to reclaim the White House.', 'former and possible future president who recognizes no limits on his authority or constitutional constraints.' These phrases are not factual statements but rather attempts to manipulate the reader's emotions. The author also uses sensational language like 'historic in its daring reach for power' and 'metaphor for a former and possible future president'. Additionally, the article selectively reports information by focusing on Trump's legal issues while ignoring other important news such as his indictment in Arizona and Michigan.
    • The ex-president’s attention is certain to stray from what he has repeatedly complained is a ‘freezing’ court in New York to the neoclassical splendor of the US Supreme Court.
    • But despite the stalling tactics, Wednesday brought another reminder of the ex-president’s scheme to overturn the 2020 election.
    • For most people, sitting in court at their own criminal trial would represent a defining moment of their life. But Donald Trump’s return to his hush money trial Thursday does not even represent the most critical courtroom drama of his day.
    • The case is potentially historic in its daring reach for power and serves as a metaphor for a former and possible future president who recognizes no limits on his authority or constitutional constraints.
    • Trump has left no doubt he’d much rather be on the grander stage in Washington, watching Supreme Court justices – three of whom he appointed – debate his claim that, as an ex-president, he cannot be prosecuted for any actions that he took in office.
  • Fallacies (80%)
    The author makes an appeal to authority by mentioning that three of the Supreme Court justices were appointed by Trump. This is not a logical fallacy on its own, but it can be used to manipulate the reader's perception. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's legal situation as 'unfathomable twists,' 'daring reach for power,' and a 'metaphor for a former and possible future president who recognizes no limits on his authority or constitutional constraints.' These statements are not based on facts and can be considered an attempt to sway the reader's opinion.
    • ]The ex-president's attention is certain to stray from what he has repeatedly complained is a 'freezing' court in New York to the neoclassical splendor of the US Supreme Court.[
    • But Trump[’]s team also adopted the long-shot claim that he enjoys absolute presidential immunity as a way to delay his federal election interference trial. The hope is to push that trial past an election that could restore to Trump the presidential powers that may allow him to derail federal prosecutions against him.[
    • It's inconceivable that other defendants would receive so much latitude in attacking the court, witnesses and jury selection.[
  • Bias (95%)
    The author expresses a clear bias towards Trump by repeatedly referring to him as 'ex-president' and 'former president', implying a negative connotation. The author also uses the phrase 'political persecution narrative' when describing Trump's complaints about being prevented from attending the Supreme Court hearing, which is an unbiased description but is used in a way that implies sympathy for Trump.
    • But Donald Trump’s return to his hush money trial Thursday does not even represent the most critical courtroom drama of his day.
      • It would be a far more colorful spectacle for a presidential campaign that has morphed with his legal defenses than the increasingly repetitive press gaggles he holds in the dingy corridor outside the Manhattan courtroom hearing his first criminal trial.
        • Millions of Trump voters have long been skeptical of efforts to call him to account for his personal, business and political behavior and are a receptive audience to his false claims he’s a political dissident being persecuted as part of a Biden plot.
          • Trump has left no doubt he’d much rather be on the grander stage in Washington, watching Supreme Court justices three of whom he appointed debate his claim that, as an ex-president, he cannot be prosecuted for any actions that he took in office.
            • Trump is also using his on-camera appearances to boost his campaign finance operation.
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication

            99%

            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

            Supreme Court to Hear Trump’s Claim to ‘Absolute Immunity’

            The New York Times Adam Liptak Thursday, 25 April 2024 09:06
            • Unique Points
              • The Supreme Court will consider on Thursday whether former President Donald J. Trump must face trial on charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election.
              • Trump is accused of a sprawling effort to overturn the outcome of the 2020 election, including by seeking to recruit bogus slates of electors in a bid to alter vote counts and pressuring an array of officials, like Vice President Mike Pence, to subvert the results.
              • Trump faces a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding.
            • Accuracy
              No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
            • 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

            81%

            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

            The Supreme Court will hear Trump's claim he's immune from criminal prosecution

            National Public Radio (NPR) Thursday, 25 April 2024 00:00
            • Unique Points
              • The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution after leaving office for any of his official acts while he was president.
              • Trump claims that the steps he took to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election were part of his official duties and thus cannot be criminally prosecuted.
              • The question of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution after leaving office has never been decided by the Supreme Court.
              • President Richard Nixon, while in office, was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate scandal but was not prosecuted then because he was protected as a sitting president. Once Nixon resigned, he accepted a pardon from President Gerald Ford rather than face criminal charges.
              • Trump is making a broader argument for immunity and contends that he cannot be prosecuted ever for his official acts as president unless he is first impeached, convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
              • The Supreme Court case is also a test for the court itself on both substance and timing. If the court were to rule against Trump, it could mean that presidents would likely be immune from prosecution after leaving office.
              • Trump's definition of a protected official act is broad, as illustrated by an exchange at the federal appeals court earlier this year regarding an order given by the commander in chief to the military.
              • The three-judge appeals court panel ruled unanimously against Trump on the immunity question in February and he then appealed to the Supreme Court.
              • Trump is required to be at his New York trial on charges that allege he falsified New York business records in order to conceal damaging information to influence the 2016 presidential election and will not be present at the Supreme Court hearing.
              • The high court case is more than a test for presidential immunity. It is also a test for the Supreme Court itself on both substance and timing.
              • Trump lawyer William Scharf maintains that everything Trump is accused of doing was an official act, and that after leaving office, Trump cannot be prosecuted for those acts.
              • Without presidential immunity, presidents will be paralyzed by the fear of post-election criminal prosecutions and unable to discharge their duties effectively.
              • Former GOP officeholders have filed a Supreme Court brief opposed to Trump’s position and argue that there is no provision in the Constitution granting this immunity, no court decision recognizing it, and that fundamental precept of our system is that no one is above the law.
            • Accuracy
              • Trump claims that the steps he took to block the certification of Joe Biden’s election were part of his official duties and thus cannot be criminally prosecuted.
              • Trump is making a broader argument for immunity and contends that he cannot be prosecuted ever for his official acts as president unless he is first impeached, convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
              • Trump lawyer William Scharf maintains that everything Trump is accused of doing was an official act, and that after leaving office, Trump cannot be prosecuted for those acts.
            • Deception (30%)
              The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support Trump's argument for immunity. It also uses emotional manipulation by describing the hearing as a 'historic event' and implying that Trump is being unfairly targeted. The author also makes editorializing statements such as 'Trump is making a far broader argument for immunity.' and 'Not so, counters Peter Keisler.'
              • But there is no mention in the Constitution of the President playing a role.
              • A genuinely historic event takes place at the Supreme Court on Thursday.
              • The text of the Constitution has no provision granting this immunity. No court decision has ever recognized this immunity. The historical understanding in our country has always been exactly the opposite.
              • Trump contends that he cannot be prosecuted ‘ever’ for his ‘official acts’ as president unless he is first impeached, convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
              • You end up in a scenario where presidents will be paralyzed by the fear of post-election criminal prosecutions, and the ability of the President to discharge his duties in a vigorous and effective way will be forever crippled.
            • Fallacies (85%)
              The author makes an appeal to authority by citing the Nixon case and quoting legal experts. However, the author also provides counterarguments from these same experts, which undermines the force of their authority. Additionally, there are several instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article to describe Trump's actions and arguments. For example, 'a genuinely historic event takes place at the Supreme Court on Thursday,' 'everything the former president is accused of doing was an official act,' and 'You end up in a scenario where presidents will be paralyzed by the fear of post-election criminal prosecutions.' These statements are not neutral descriptions but rather loaded language that seeks to sway readers' opinions. Therefore, while there are no formal logical fallacies identified in the text, the use of inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority reduce the overall score.
              • ][author] A genuinely historic event takes place at the Supreme Court on Thursday.[//]
              • [author] You end up in a scenario where presidents will be paralyzed by the fear of post-election criminal prosecutions.[
            • 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

            80%

            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

            Trump Flips Script in Election Case to Justify Immunity Defense

            The New York Times Alan Feuer Tuesday, 23 April 2024 16:03
            • Unique Points
              • Donald Trump is making an immunity defense against criminal charges related to the 2020 election.
              • Trump's lawyers argue that his actions were official acts taken as president and cannot be subject to prosecution.
              • The Supreme Court will consider Trump’s immunity defense on Thursday, marking new legal ground in the question of whether a former president can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office.
            • Accuracy
              • Trump faces a count of conspiring to defraud the government, another of conspiring to disenfranchise voters and two counts related to corruptly obstructing a congressional proceeding.
            • Deception (30%)
              The author, Alan Feuer, uses editorializing language and selectively reports information to present a biased perspective in this article. He describes Trump's immunity defense as an attempt to 'create a different reality,' but does not provide any evidence that this is an intentional deception on Trump's part. The author also implies that Trump's defense is 'breathtaking' and 'audacious,' without providing any reasoning or evidence for these characterizations. Additionally, the article contains sensational language, such as describing the Supreme Court hearing as a 'pivotal Supreme Court hearing.'
              • The former president’s claim ahead of a pivotal Supreme Court hearing that he was protecting the election system rather than subverting it is part of a pattern of shaping his own reality.
              • In many ways, Mr. Trump’s immunity claim is breathtaking.
              • It was certainly a requisite step his lawyers had to take to advance the immunity argument.
            • Fallacies (85%)
              The author makes an appeal to authority by stating that Trump's lawyers went so far as to say that a president cannot be prosecuted even for using the military to assassinate a rival unless he is first impeached. This statement is not based on any evidence or logical reasoning provided in the article, but rather it is an assertion made by Trump's lawyers. Therefore, this constitutes an appeal to authority fallacy.
              • The author states: 'In one instance, his lawyers went so far as to say that a president cannot be prosecuted even for using the military to assassinate a rival unless he is first impeached.'
            • 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