Connect with us

International

The Supreme Court is skeptical of Trump’s immunity but could lengthen the litigation

The United States Supreme Court was skeptical this Thursday about Donald Trump’s request to enjoy absolute judicial immunity for having been president of the country, but there were judges who were inclined not to fully resolve the matter and return it to lower courts.

In a historic hearing of more than two hours, the nine magistrates (six conservatives and three progressives) questioned Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, and prosecutor Michael Dreeben about the Republican’s potential immunity.

The high court must decide if Trump has absolute immunity for having been president of the country and, therefore, the trial against him pending in a federal court in Washington for electoral interference and the assault on the Capitol must be annulled.

Most judges were skeptical of Trump’s request when considering that only the actions of the functions of a president are shielded by immunity and not those that are personal.

But there were also conservative magistrates critical of the handling of the case by the Prosecutor’s Office and suggested that they could return the case to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to determine whether Trump’s actions can be considered public or private.

Advertisement
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20250501_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250501_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow

Trump, a Republican pre-candidate in the elections on November 5, should extend the litigation since, if he returns to the White House, he could order the Department of Justice to close the federal accusations against him.

On the other hand, the Special Prosecutor’s Office led by Jack Smith pressures the high court to make a quick decision and the preparations for the trial of the assault on the Capitol, which should have begun on March 4 but was suspended due to Trump’s request for immunity, can be resumed.

It is unknown when the Supreme Court will issue its ruling, but it usually publishes its decisions in June, before the summer recess.

Although it is not included in the Constitution or in the laws, the active presidents of the United States have historically enjoyed immunity from judicial processes related to their functions, in order to avoid a violation of the separation between the executive and judicial branches.

Questioned by conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump himself, the Republican’s lawyer admitted that some of the actions that the former president carried out after the 2020 elections were “private” and probably not protected by immunity.

Advertisement
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20250501_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250501_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow

Later, the also conservative Samuel Alito pressured the prosecutor with the idea that leaving the former presidents unprotected would “destabilize” democracy because it would open the door for the new leaders to imprison their predecessors for revenge.

Progressive judges were very opposed to Trump’s absolute immunity.

Elena Kagan recalled that the drafters of the Constitution were opposed to the existence of a “monarch” who was “above the law” and Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the pardon that Richard Nixon received after the Watergate scandal shows that the former presidents can be prosecuted.

Unlike Trump, however, Nixon was not formally charged with any crime. His successor, Gerald Ford (1974-1977), granted him a preventive pardon for any crime he could have committed during his Presidency to prevent him from being prosecuted in the future, in a controversial decision that divided the country.

Advertisement
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20250501_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250501_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow
Continue Reading
Advertisement
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_300x250
20250501_vacunacion-influenza-300x250
20250501_vacunacion_vph-300x250
20231124_etesal_300x250_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_300X250
MARN1

International

Trump signs order to end federal funding for NPR and PBS

U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to halt federal funding for two public media outlets, PBS television and NPR radio, accusing them of being biased.

NPR and PBS are partially funded by American taxpayers but rely heavily on private donations.

Trump has long maintained a hostile relationship with most media outlets, which he has referred to as the “enemy of the people.”

An exception is the conservative Fox News channel, some of whose hosts have played important roles in the administration of the Republican magnate.

“National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) receive taxpayer funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB),” Trump said.

Advertisement
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20250501_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250501_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow

“Therefore, I direct the CPB board and all executive departments and agencies to cease federal funding for NPR and PBS,” he added.

The Republican leader argued that “neither of these entities provides a fair, accurate, or impartial portrayal of current events to the taxpayer citizens.”

At the end of March, Donald Trump called on Congress to end public funding for these two “horrible and completely biased networks.”

Continue Reading

International

Man arrested after deliberately driving into seven children in Osaka

Japanese police arrested a man on Thursday after he rammed his car into a group of seven schoolchildren in an apparent deliberate attack in the city of Osaka.

The children, who were on their way home from school, sustained injuries and were taken to the hospital. All seven remained conscious, according to local authorities.

An Osaka police officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the suspect is a 28-year-old man from Tokyo. The officer shared statements the man made after his arrest: “I was fed up with everything, so I decided to kill people by driving into several elementary school children,” the suspect reportedly said.

The man has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

The injured children, aged between seven and eight, included a seven-year-old girl who suffered a fractured jaw. The six other children—all boys—suffered minor injuries such as bruises and scratches and were undergoing medical evaluation.

Advertisement
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20250501_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250501_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow

Witnesses described the car as “zigzagging” before hitting the children. One witness told Nippon TV that a girl was “covered in blood” and the others appeared to have scratches.

Another witness said the driver, who was wearing a face mask, looked to be in shock when school staff pulled him from the vehicle.

Violent crimes are rare in Japan, though serious incidents do occur from time to time. In 2008, Tomohiro Kato drove a two-ton truck into pedestrians in Tokyo’s Akihabara district, then fatally stabbed several victims. Seven people were killed in that attack.

Continue Reading

Internacionales

Clashes erupt during may day protests across France amid calls for better wages

May Day protests in France were marked by a heavy police presence and clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement in several cities.

In Paris, Lyon, and Nantes, thousands took to the streets to demand better wages, fairer working conditions, and to voice their dissatisfaction with President Emmanuel Macron’s government.

While the majority of the demonstrations remained peaceful, isolated confrontations broke out in some areas. Protesters threw objects at the police, prompting the use of tear gas and resulting in several arrests.

Videos showing police crackdowns circulated widely on social media, drawing criticism from labor unions and human rights advocates, who denounced the authorities’ response to the protests.

Continue Reading

Trending

Central News