Connect with us

Politics

Trump replies to DA Bragg in case to get conviction tossed in light of Supreme Court immunity decision

Published

on

Trump replies to DA Bragg in case to get conviction tossed in light of Supreme Court immunity decision

Former President Donald Trump has filed a reply brief in his case to have his conviction in N.Y. v Trump overturned after the Supreme Court ruled presidents have some immunity for official acts in office. 

Trump was found guilty in an unprecedented criminal trial last month on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, following a six-week trial stemming from Bragg’s investigation. Trump has already requested Judge Juan Merchan overturn the verdict. 

TRUMP’S APPEAL TO LIFT REMAINING PARTS OF NY GAG ORDER DENIED

Donald Trump arrives to Trump Tower, Thursday, May 30, 2024, after being found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. (Felipe Ramales for Fox News Digital)

In the filing Thursday, lawyers for Trump argued that “The Supreme Court of the United States ruled conclusively and unequivocally that President Trump is protected by immunity for his official acts.”

Advertisement

“In this case, a politically motivated district attorney violated that immunity by using official-acts evidence in grand jury proceedings and at trial. Therefore, the case must be dismissed, and the jury’s verdicts must be vacated.”

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office but not for unofficial acts. The high court said Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” but left it to the lower court to determine exactly where the line between official and unofficial is.

NEW YORK, NEW YORK – MARCH 21: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. 

“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,” the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts states. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”

TRUMP TOUTS SUPREME COURT’S PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY RULING AS ‘BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND FOR DEMOCRACY’

Advertisement

The question of presidential immunity stemmed from special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case against Trump. Trump pleaded not guilty to those charges. That trial was put on hold in a lower court pending the Supreme Court’s ruling, which wiped out any charges related to official presidential acts.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche, in the filing Thursday, argued that Bragg offered official acts evidence during the six-week-long unprecedented criminal trial. Blanche said that included official White House communications with staffers like Hope Hicks, Madeleine Westerhout, and more. 

Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media alongside his attorney Todd Blanche after the conclusion of his hush money trial in New York, Thursday, May 30, 2024.  (Michael M. Santiago/Pool Photo via AP)

Blanche also said Trump’s official public statements made via Twitter were used as evidence; his official acts in response to inquiries by the Federal Election Commission; official acts relating to inquiries by Congress and prosecutors; and more. 

Advertisement

“President Trump was subjected to fundamentally unfair proceedings that invited jurors to examine official-acts evidence based on ‘their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office,’” Blanche wrote. “This fundamental unfairness also harms the public because of the adverse impact of these violations on the work of future Presidents to serve the American people.” 

He added: “For the reasons set forth in the Defense Motion and herein, the Court should dismiss the Indictment and vacate the jury’s verdicts based on violations of the Presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause.” 

Judge Juan Merchan, last month, agreed to Trump’s request to delay his original sentencing date, July 11, and said that a hearing on Trump’s potential sentencing would take place Sept. 18. 

Politics

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

Published

on

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds

Published

on

California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds

California is suing the Trump administration over its “baseless and cruel” decision to freeze $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance allocated to California and four other Democratic-led states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed jointly by the five states targeted by the freeze — California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Colorado — over the Trump administration’s allegations of widespread fraud within their welfare systems. California alone is facing a loss of about $5 billion in funding, including $1.4 billion for child-care programs.

The lawsuit alleges that the freeze is based on unfounded claims of fraud and infringes on Congress’ spending power as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This is just the latest example of Trump’s willingness to throw vulnerable children, vulnerable families and seniors under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against California and Democratic-led states,” Bonta said at a Thursday evening news conference.

The $10-billion funding freeze follows the administration’s decision to freeze $185 million in child-care funds to Minnesota, where federal officials allege that as much as half of the roughly $18 billion paid to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been fraudulent. Amid the fallout, Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and announced that he will not seek a third term.

Advertisement

Bonta said that letters sent by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announcing the freeze Tuesday provided no evidence to back up claims of widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in California. The freeze applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Social Services Block Grant program and the Child Care and Development Fund.

“This is funding that California parents count on to get the safe and reliable child care they need so that they can go to work and provide for their families,” he said. “It’s funding that helps families on the brink of homelessness keep roofs over their heads.”

Bonta also raised concerns regarding Health and Human Services’ request that California turn over all documents associated with the state’s implementation of the three programs. This requires the state to share personally identifiable information about program participants, a move Bonta called “deeply concerning and also deeply questionable.”

“The administration doesn’t have the authority to override the established, lawful process our states have already gone through to submit plans and receive approval for these funds,” Bonta said. “It doesn’t have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution and trample Congress’ power of the purse.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan and marked the 53rd suit California had filed against the Trump administration since the president’s inauguration last January. It asks the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s sweeping demands for documents and data.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending