Paula Reid, chief legal affairs correspondent for CNN, described how former president Donald Trump might benefit from becoming a witness in future courtrooms after the Supreme Court ruled in his favor on Monday, stating that presidents do have some protection after leaving office.
Now that we are well into the Trump case processes, they claim we do not have to determine whether presumptive immunity is enough or if absolute immunity is required. Reid started to read the ruling and speculated: "Beyond that, though, it may just be a presumption of immunity." This meant that there was some wiggle space, since the president's basic constitutional responsibilities are absolutely immune. Here we have the headline: ex-presidents should have some kind of immunity. According to Trump's staff, the former president is celebrating "a major victory."
In Trump's January 6th lawsuit in the District of Columbia, anchor Kaitlin Collins said that Judge Tanya Chutkan has been trying to bring the matter to trial before the election so that people may know all the facts about it.
Yes, and she has made a rapid transition. It was her intention to go to trial in March for the whole matter. Jack Smith first sought the Supreme Court's opinion on this matter in December, while it was still under consideration. Reid had the following response: "So this case could go before the election."
The Supreme Court's invitation to more processes and litigation, however, renders a November trial very improbable. This is a big deal since a reelection for Trump would allow him to dismiss the secret materials issue altogether. In terms of the near future, they are portraying this as a significant win because they can continue to litigate for months, maybe putting it off until beyond November. In such instance, winning the election will be enough to dismiss the charges.
I think that is why they are seeing this as a significant triumph. It is uncertain whether Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has moved swiftly and forcefully, will be able to resolve all of these issues and hold a trial before November, even though she has agreed with the special counsel that there was a public interest in bringing this case forward before the election.
Now that we are well into the Trump case processes, they claim we do not have to determine whether presumptive immunity is enough or if absolute immunity is required. Reid started to read the ruling and speculated: "Beyond that, though, it may just be a presumption of immunity." This meant that there was some wiggle space, since the president's basic constitutional responsibilities are absolutely immune. Here we have the headline: ex-presidents should have some kind of immunity. According to Trump's staff, the former president is celebrating "a major victory."
In Trump's January 6th lawsuit in the District of Columbia, anchor Kaitlin Collins said that Judge Tanya Chutkan has been trying to bring the matter to trial before the election so that people may know all the facts about it.
Yes, and she has made a rapid transition. It was her intention to go to trial in March for the whole matter. Jack Smith first sought the Supreme Court's opinion on this matter in December, while it was still under consideration. Reid had the following response: "So this case could go before the election."
The Supreme Court's invitation to more processes and litigation, however, renders a November trial very improbable. This is a big deal since a reelection for Trump would allow him to dismiss the secret materials issue altogether. In terms of the near future, they are portraying this as a significant win because they can continue to litigate for months, maybe putting it off until beyond November. In such instance, winning the election will be enough to dismiss the charges.
I think that is why they are seeing this as a significant triumph. It is uncertain whether Judge Tanya Chutkan, who has moved swiftly and forcefully, will be able to resolve all of these issues and hold a trial before November, even though she has agreed with the special counsel that there was a public interest in bringing this case forward before the election.
