Some justices seemed more concerned with what imagined future presidents might do to stay in office, rather than holding Trump accountable for how he attempted to do the same.
Ray Brescia is the Associate Dean for Research and Intellectual Life at Albany Law School and the author of Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present, and Future of the American Legal Profession. He is an expert on legal ethics and civil procedure, was the Associate Director of the Urban Justice Center in New York City, and served as law clerk to the Hon. Constance Baker Motley, former U.S. District Court Judge in the Southern District of New York. All opinions are his own.
The damning evidence in his New York criminal trial is just beginning to mount—and going after Trump’s former fixer is probably not enough to save the ex-president’s bacon.
If Trump actually ends up testifying, there’s a good chance he will be his own worst legal liability.
The New York trial starting Monday could be the time when Trump finally learns legal gravity is real.
An appeals court on Monday gave Trump a little more time to pay his massive bond. But in another courtroom, a judge lambasted his legal team and ordered the trial to proceed.
The brief delay in the New York trial is just a small victory for Trump. The really consequential stuff hasn’t gone his way lately.
The Trump-friendly judge is so obviously putting her thumb on the scales of justice in favor of the ex-president that she might not end up adjudicating the trial at all.
SCOTUS agreed to hear Trump’s claim that he’s immune from prosecution for trying to steal the 2020 election, which likely will delay his trial until after the 2024 election.
It’s wrong to think that only big banks suffered—Trump cheated governments, and, by extension, taxpayers.
The Court should do what it does with most cases—let the lower court’s decision stand without even considering the appeal.