Fact Focus: Trump wasn’t exonerated by the presidential immunity ruling, even though he says he was

Fact Focus: Trump wasn’t exonerated by the presidential immunity ruling, even though he says he was
President Donald Trump on July 2, 2024, misrepresented in a social media post what the US Supreme Court's Monday ruling on presidential immunity means for his civil and criminal cases. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 04 July 2024
Follow

Fact Focus: Trump wasn’t exonerated by the presidential immunity ruling, even though he says he was

Fact Focus: Trump wasn’t exonerated by the presidential immunity ruling, even though he says he was
  • None of Trump’s pending cases have been dismissed as a result of the ruling

 

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday misrepresented in a social media post what the US Supreme Court’s Monday ruling on presidential immunity means for his civil and criminal cases.
“TOTAL EXONERATION!” he wrote in the post on his Truth Social platform. “It is clear that the Supreme Court’s Brilliantly Written and Historic Decision ENDS all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me, including the WHITE HOUSE AND DOJ INSPIRED CIVIL HOAXES in New York.”
But none of Trump’s pending cases have been dismissed as a result of the ruling, nor have the verdicts already reached against him been overturned. The ruling does amount to a major victory for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, whose legal strategy has focused on delaying court proceedings until after the 2024 election.
Here’s a closer look at the facts.
CLAIM: The Supreme Court’s ruling that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution means “total exoneration” for former President Donald Trump.
THE FACTS: Although the historic 6-3 ruling is a win for Trump, he has not been exonerated and his legal troubles are far from over. A delay of his Washington trial on charges of election interference has been indefinitely extended as a result. Also, he still faces charges in two other criminal cases, and the verdicts already reached against him in a criminal and a civil case have not been overturned.
Barbara McQuade, a law professor at the University of Michigan and former US attorney for the state’s Eastern District, told The Associated Press that Trump’s claim is “inaccurate for a number of reasons.”
“The court found immunity from prosecution, not exoneration,” she wrote in an email. “The court did not say that Trump’s conduct did not amount to criminal behavior. Just that prosecutors are not allowed to prosecute him for it because of the special role of a president and the need to permit him to make ‘bold’ and ‘fearless’ decisions without concern for criminal consequences.”
McQuade wrote that Trump’s case over classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate won’t be affected, as it arose from conduct committed after he left the White House. She added that any impact on his New York hush money trial “seems unlikely” since the crimes were committed in a personal capacity.
“In addition, the Court’s opinion is solely focused on immunity for criminal conduct,” McQuade continued, explaining that it will not protect him from civil liability in his cases regarding defamatory statements about advice columnist E. Jean Carroll or fraudulent business practices conducted at the Trump Organization.
Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority said former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” and are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. Unofficial, or private, actions are exempt from such immunity.
This means that special counsel Jack Smith cannot proceed with significant allegations in his indictment accusing Trump of plotting to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss, or he must at least defend their use in future proceedings before the trial judge.
The case has not been dismissed. It was instead sent back to US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who must now “carefully analyze” whether other allegations involve official conduct for which the president would be immune from prosecution. The trial was supposed to have begun in March, but has been on hold since December to allow Trump to pursue his Supreme Court appeal.
However, the justices did knock out one aspect of the indictment, finding that Trump is “absolutely immune” from prosecution for alleged conduct involving discussions with the Justice Department.
The opinion also stated that Trump is “at least presumptively immune” from allegations that he tried to pressure Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 6, 2021, to reject certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s electoral vote win. But prosecutors can try to make the case that Trump’s pressure on Pence can still be part of the case against him, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
It is all but certain that the ruling means Trump will not face trial in Washington ahead of the 2024 election, as the need for further analysis is expected to tie up the case for months with legal wrangling over whether actions in the indictment were official or unofficial, the AP has reported.
Trump is facing charges in two other criminal cases, one over his alleged interference in Georgia’s 2020 election and the other over classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House. Trump’s lawyers have asserted presidential immunity in both cases, but a ruling on the matter has not been made in either.
The former president was convicted in May of 34 felony counts in his hush money trial in New York. After Monday’s ruling, the New York judge who presided over that trial postponed Trump’s sentencing until at least September and agreed to weigh the impact of the presidential immunity decision.
Trump was ordered in February to pay a $454 million penalty as part of a civil fraud lawsuit, for lying about his wealth for years as he built the real estate empire that vaulted him to stardom and the White House. It is still under appeal.
In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in 1996 and for defaming her over the allegations, awarding her $5 million. Carroll was awarded an additional $83.3 million in January by a separate jury for Trump’s continued social media attacks against her. An appeal of the former decision was rejected in April. The latter case is still being appealed.
 

 


Taipei to host Shanghai delegation in rare high level visit

Taipei to host Shanghai delegation in rare high level visit
Updated 1 min 4 sec ago
Follow

Taipei to host Shanghai delegation in rare high level visit

Taipei to host Shanghai delegation in rare high level visit
TAIPEI: Taiwan’s capital will host a rare high level Chinese delegation later this month when a deputy mayor of Shanghai visits for an annual city forum, a trip that will be happening at a time of heightened tensions across the Taiwan Strait.
Shanghai Vice Mayor Hua Yuan would visit from Dec. 16-17 for the Taipei-Shanghai City Forum, which was first held in 2010, Taipei city government spokesperson Yin Wei told reporters on Wednesday.
“This year is the 15th time it will be held, and 45 memorandums of understanding have been held in the past which a very good result for city exchanges between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait,” he added.
China’s official Xinhua news agency confirmed the forum would take place in Taipei this year.
“Cross-strait city exchanges are conducive to enhancing the affinity and well-being of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and promoting the peaceful development of relations,” it said in a brief report.
Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an is from the main opposition Kuomintang party, which traditionally favors close ties across the strait and dialogue though denies being pro-Beijing.
Chiang is a rising star in the party and widely considered a future presidential candidate.
He visited Shanghai last year for the same city forum.
China, which claims the democratically governed island as its territory, has been carrying out military activities near Taiwan, including regularly sending fighter jets into the air space around it.
Taiwan’s government has pushed to re-open talks with China but Beijing refuses to engage with President Lai Ching-te, calling him a “separatist.”
Lai says only Taiwan’s people can decide their future.

Depleted by war, Ukraine gives absconding soldiers second chance

Depleted by war, Ukraine gives absconding soldiers second chance
Updated 18 min 14 sec ago
Follow

Depleted by war, Ukraine gives absconding soldiers second chance

Depleted by war, Ukraine gives absconding soldiers second chance
  • Ukraine lacks soldiers to hold back much bigger enemy
  • Rate of troops fleeing front or bases has jumped in 2024

KYIV: As Ukraine’s military struggles to find enough troops, particularly infantry, to hold off Russia’s much larger army, some units are giving a second chance to those who have absconded from service.
Data from the prosecutor’s office shows nearly 95,000 criminal cases have been opened since 2022 against soldiers going “absent without leave” (AWOL) and for the more serious crime of battlefield desertion.
The number of cases has risen steeply with each year of the war: almost two-thirds of the total are from 2024. With many tens of thousands of troops killed or wounded, it is a depletion that Ukraine can ill afford.
Now, some units are replenishing their ranks by accepting soldiers previously declared AWOL.
One of them is Ukraine’s elite 47th Brigade, which published a social media post last month inviting soldiers who had absconded to join.
“Our aim is to give every soldier the opportunity to come back into the fold and realize his potential,” the post announced. In the first two days, the brigade said, over a hundred applications came in.
“There was a tsunami of applications; so many that we still aren’t able to process them all before new ones come in,” Viacheslav Smirnov, the 47th’s head of recruitment, said two weeks after the announcement.
Two military units Reuters spoke to said they were only recruiting soldiers who had gone AWOL from their bases, rather than those who had deserted from combat.
The former is seen within the Ukrainian military as a lesser offense. A bill recently signed into law has in effect decriminalized a soldier’s first disappearance, allowing them to return to service.
Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers rejoin after absconding
Col. Oleksandr Hrynchuk, deputy head of Ukraine’s military police, told reporters on Tuesday that 6,000 AWOL soldiers had returned to service in the last month, including 3,000 in the 72 hours since the law was signed.
Mykhailo Perets, an officer from the K-2 battalion of Ukraine’s 54th Brigade, said his battalion had already hired over 30 men who had gone AWOL from other units.
“The reasons [for absconding] are very different: for some people it was too tough a transition straight from civilian life, others served for a year or two as qualified pilots but were then sent to the front line because there wasn’t enough infantry.”
Perets said those who had applied also included men who had become exhausted and run away after being at war for seven or eight years, having fought Russian-backed forces in eastern Ukraine before 2022.
Gil Barndollar, a non-resident fellow at the US-based Defense Priorities think tank, said the increase in unauthorized absences was most likely driven by exhaustion.
Ukrainian service personnel have previously said how the lack of replacements for lost soldiers puts an unbearable strain on those remaining, exhausting them physically and mentally.
Barndollar also highlighted their average age as an additional strain.
“An army of men, often in poor health, in their 40s, all else being equal, is going to get exhausted sooner and is going to have morale problems faster than a reasonably fit army of 20- or 25-year-olds.”
Zelensky has responded to questions about the manpower problem by arguing that Ukraine lacks weapons rather than people, and pushed back against US pressure to lower the minimum draft age to 18 from 25.
He said in an interview with Sky News last week that Kyiv’s allies had been able to provide the necessary equipment for only a quarter of the 10 new brigades Ukraine had formed over the past year.


South Korean leader urged to resign or be impeached after imposing sudden martial law

South Korean leader urged to resign or be impeached after imposing sudden martial law
Updated 04 December 2024
Follow

South Korean leader urged to resign or be impeached after imposing sudden martial law

South Korean leader urged to resign or be impeached after imposing sudden martial law
  • Yoon abruptly imposed martial law Tuesday night, vowing to eliminate “anti-state” forces after he struggled to push his agenda in parliament

SEOUL: South Korea’s main opposition party on Wednesday urged President Yoon Suk Yeol to resign immediately or face impeachment, hours after Yoon ended a short-lived martial law that prompted troops to encircle parliament before lawmakers voted to lift it.
Yoon’s senior advisers and secretaries offered to resign collectively and his Cabinet members, including Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, were also facing calls to step down, as the nation struggled to make sense of what appeared to be a poorly-thought-out stunt.
In the capital, tourists and residents walked around, traffic and construction were heard, and other than crowds of police holding shields, it seemed like a normal sunny, cold December morning.
On Tuesday night, Yoon abruptly imposed the emergency martial law, vowing to eliminate “anti-state” forces after he struggled to push forward his agenda in the opposition-dominated parliament. But his martial law was effective for only about six hours, as the National Assembly voted to overrule the president. The declaration was formally lifted around 4:30 a.m. during a Cabinet meeting.
The liberal opposition Democratic Party, which holds a majority in the 300-seat parliament, said Wednesday that its lawmakers decided to call on Yoon to quit immediately or they would take steps to impeach him.
“President Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law declaration was a clear violation of the constitution. It didn’t abide by any requirements to declare it,” the Democratic Party said in a statement. “His martial law declaration was originally invalid and a grave violation of the constitution. It was a grave act of rebellion and provides perfect grounds for his impeachment.”
Impeaching him would require support from two-thirds of the parliament, or 200 of its 300 members. The Democratic Party and other small opposition parties together have 192 seats. But when the parliament rejected Yoon’s martial law declaration in a 190-0 vote, 18 lawmakers from Yoon’s ruling People Power Party cast ballots supporting the rejection, according to National Assembly officials. The leader of the People Power Party, Han Dong-hun, who has long ties with Yoon dating to their days as prosecutors, criticized Yoon’s martial law declaration as “unconstitutional.” If Yoon is impeached, he’ll be stripped of his constitutional powers until the Constitutional Court can rule on his fate. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the No. 2 position in the South Korean government, would take over his presidential responsibilities. As calls mounted for Yoon’s Cabinet to resign, Han issued a public message pleading for patience and calling for Cabinet members to “fulfill your duties even after this moment.”
Yoon’s martial law declaration, the first of its kind in more than 40 years, harkened to South Korea’s past military-backed governments when authorities occasionally proclaimed martial law and other decrees that allowed them to station combat soldiers, tanks and armored vehicles on streets or at public places like schools to prevent anti-government demonstrations. Such scenes of military intervention had not been seen since South Korea achieved a genuine democracy in the late 1980s until Tuesday night.
After Yoon’s declaration, troops carrying full battle gear, including assault rifles, tried to keep protesters away from the National Assembly as military helicopters flew overhead and landed nearby. One soldier pointed his assault rifle at a woman who was among protesters outside the building demanding that the martial law be lifted.
It wasn’t clear how the 190 lawmakers were able to enter a parliamentary hall to vote down Yoon’s martial law decree. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung livestreamed himself climbing over the wall, and while troops and police officers blocked some from entering they didn’t aggressively restrain or use force against others.
No major violence has been reported. The troops and police personnel were later seen leaving the grounds of the National Assembly after the parliamentary vote to lift the martial law. National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik said: “Even with our unfortunate memories of military coups, our citizens have surely observed the events of today and saw the maturity of our military.”
Han, the People Power Party leader, demanded that Yoon explain his decision and fire Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, who he said recommended the martial law decree to Yoon. The Defense Ministry has not commented.
Under South Korea’s constitution, the president can declare martial law during “wartime, war-like situations or other comparable national emergency states” that require the use of military force to restrict the freedom of press, assembly and other rights to maintain order. Many observers question whether South Korea is currently in such a state.
The constitution also states that the president must oblige when the National Assembly demands the lifting of martial law with a majority vote.
Some experts say Yoon clearly violated the constitution in how he imposed martial law. While martial law allows “special measures” to restrict individual freedoms and the authority of agencies and courts, the constitution does not permit the functions of parliament to be restricted. But in following Yoon’s declaration on Tuesday, South Korea’s military proclaimed parliamentary activities were suspended and deployed troops to try to block lawmakers from entering the National Assembly.
Park Chan-dae, the Democratic Party’s floor leader, called for Yoon to be immediately investigated on charges of rebellion over the way he deployed troops to the parliament. While the president mostly enjoys immunity from prosecution while in office, the protection does not extend to alleged rebellion or treason.
In Washington, the White House said the US was “seriously concerned” by the events in Seoul. A spokesperson for the National Security Council said President Joe Biden’s administration was not notified in advance of the martial law announcement and was in contact with the South Korean government.
Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said there was no effect on the more than 27,000 US service members based in South Korea.
In Seoul, the streets seemed busy like a normal day Wednesday.
Tourist Stephen Rowan, from Brisbane, Australia, who was touring Gyeongbokgung Palace, said he was not concerned at all.
“But then again, I don’t understand too much about the political status in Korea,” he said. “But I hear they are now calling for the current president’s resignation, so ... apparently there’s going to be a lot of demonstrations. ... I would have been concerned if martial law had stayed enforced.”
Yoon’s government and ruling party have been embroiled in an impasse with the Democratic Party over next year’s budget bill and a Democratic Party-led attempt to to impeach three top prosecutors.
During his televised announcement, Yoon also described the opposition as “shameless pro-North Korean anti-state forces who are plundering the freedom and happiness of our citizens.” He did not elaborate. North Korea had no immediate comments.
Natalia Slavney, research analyst at the Stimson Center’s 38 North website that focuses on Korean affairs, said Yoon’s imposition of martial law was “a serious backslide of democracy” that followed a “worrying trend of abuse” since he took office in 2022.
South Korea “has a robust history of political pluralism and is no stranger to mass protests and swift impeachments,” Slavney said, citing the example of former President Park Geun-hye, who was ousted from office and imprisoned for bribery and other crimes in 2017. She was later pardoned.


South Korean President Yoon is urged to resign or face impeachment over martial law

South Korean President Yoon is urged to resign or face impeachment over martial law
Updated 04 December 2024
Follow

South Korean President Yoon is urged to resign or face impeachment over martial law

South Korean President Yoon is urged to resign or face impeachment over martial law
  • On Tuesday night, Yoon abruptly imposed emergency martial law
  • The National Assembly voted to overrule the president within six hours 

SEOUL: South Korea’s main opposition party on Wednesday urged President Yoon Suk Yeol to resign immediately or face impeachment, hours after Yoon ended short-lived martial law that prompted troops to encircle parliament before lawmakers voted to lift it.
Yoon didn’t make any immediate public response to the opposition’s demand. But his office said senior presidential advisers and secretaries for Yoon offered to resign collectively and the president also put off his official Wednesday morning schedule.
In the capital, tourists and residents walked around, traffic and construction were heard, and other than crowds of police holding shields, it seemed like a normal sunny, cold December morning.
On Tuesday night, Yoon abruptly imposed the emergency martial law, vowing to eliminate “anti-state” forces after he struggled to push forward his agenda in the opposition-dominated parliament. But his martial law was effective for only about six hours, as the National Assembly voted to overrule the president. The declaration was formally lifted around 4:30 a.m. during a Cabinet meeting.
The liberal opposition Democratic Party, which holds a majority in the 300-seat parliament, said Wednesday that its lawmakers decided to call on Yoon to quit immediately or they would take steps to impeach him.
“President Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law declaration was a clear violation of the constitution. It didn’t abide by any requirements to declare it,” the Democratic Party said in a statement. “His martial law declaration was originally invalid and a grave violation of the constitution. It was a grave act of rebellion and provides perfect grounds for his impeachment.”
Impeaching him would require support from two-thirds of the parliament, or 200 of its 300 members. The Democratic Party and other small opposition parties together have 192 seats. But when the parliament rejected Yoon’s martial law declaration in a 190-0 vote, 18 lawmakers from Yoon’s ruling People Power Party cast ballots supporting the rejection, according to National Assembly officials.
If Yoon is impeached, he’ll be stripped of his constitutional powers until the Constitutional Court can rule on his fate. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the No. 2 position in the South Korean government, would take over his presidential responsibilities.
Yoon’s martial law declaration, the first of its kind in more than 40 years, harkened to South Korea’s past military-backed governments when authorities occasionally proclaimed martial law and other decrees that allowed them to station combat soldiers, tanks and armored vehicles on streets or at public places like schools to prevent anti-government demonstrations. Such scenes of military intervention had not been seen since South Korea achieved a genuine democracy in the late 1980s until Tuesday night.
After Yoon’s declaration, troops carrying full battle gear, including assault rifles, tried to keep protesters away from the National Assembly as military Blackhawk helicopters flew overhead and landed nearby. One soldier pointed his assault rifle at a woman who was among protesters outside the building demanding that the martial law be lifted.
It wasn’t clear how the 190 lawmakers were able to enter a parliamentary hall to vote down Yoon’s martial law decree. Some reportedly climbed over walls, and while troops and police officers blocked some from entering they didn’t aggressively restrain or use force against others.
No major violence has been reported. The troops and police personnel were later seen leaving the ground of the National Assembly after the parliamentary vote to lift the martial law. National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik said: “Even with our unfortunate memories of military coups, our citizens have surely observed the events of today and saw the maturity of our military.”
Ruling People Power Party Han Dong-hun demanded that Yoon explain his decision and fire Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, who he said recommended the martial law decree to Yoon. The Defense Ministry has not commented.
Under South Korea’s constitution, the president can declare martial law during “wartime, war-like situations or other comparable national emergency states” that require the use of military force to restrict the freedom of press, assembly and other rights to maintain order. Many observers question whether South Korea is currently in such a state.
The constitution also states that the president must oblige when the National Assembly demands the lifting of martial law with a majority vote.
In Washington, the White House said the US was “seriously concerned” by the events in Seoul. A spokesperson for the National Security Council said President Joe Biden’s administration was not notified in advance of the martial law announcement and was in contact with the South Korean government.
Pentagon spokesman Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said there was no effect on the more than 27,000 US service members based in South Korea.
In Seoul, the streets seemed busy like a normal day. Tourist Stephen Rowan, from Brisbane, Australia, who was touring Gyeongbokgung Palace, said he was not concerned at all.
“But then again, I don’t understand too much about the political status in Korea,” he said. “But I hear they are now calling for the current president’s resignation, so ... apparently there’s going to be a lot of demonstrations. ... I would have been concerned if martial law had stayed enforced.”
Yoon’s government and ruling party have been embroiled in an impasse with the Democratic Party over next year’s budget bill and a Democratic Party-led attempt to to impeach three top prosecutors.
During his televised announcement, Yoon also described the opposition as “shameless pro-North Korean anti-state forces who are plundering the freedom and happiness of our citizens.” He did not elaborate. North Korea has no immediate comments.
Natalia Slavney, research analyst at the Stimson Center’s 38 North website that focuses on Korean affairs, said Yoon’s imposition of martial law was “a serious backslide of democracy” that followed a “worrying trend of abuse” since he took office in 2022.
South Korea “has a robust history of political pluralism and is no stranger to mass protests and swift impeachments,” Slavney said, citing the example of former President Park Geun-hye, who was ousted from office and imprisoned for bribery and other crimes in 2017. She was later pardoned.


US Republicans eye two-step Trump legislative agenda

US Republicans eye two-step Trump legislative agenda
Updated 04 December 2024
Follow

US Republicans eye two-step Trump legislative agenda

US Republicans eye two-step Trump legislative agenda

WASHINGTON: Republicans in the US Congress are discussing a two-step plan to push ahead on President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda when they take control of both chambers next year, potentially starting with border security, energy and defense before turning to tax cuts.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune, whose Republicans will hold a 53-47 majority, laid out a plan in a closed-door party meeting on Tuesday that included a call from Trump himself. It aims to use a parliamentary maneuver to bypass the chamber’s “filibuster” rule that requires 60 senators to agree to advance most legislation.
According to the Senate plan, the first bill would focus on Trump’s agenda for border security, energy deregulation and defense spending, while the second would extend tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed during the first Trump presidency, which are due to expire next year.
Thune told reporters that the plan amounted to “options, all of which our members are considering.”
To enact Trump’s agenda, the Senate will have to work closely with the president-elect and the House of Representatives, which is expected to have a razor-thin Republican majority.
“We were always planning to do reconciliation in two packages. So we’re discussing right now how to allocate the various provisions, and we’re making those decisions over the next couple of days,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, who joined Senate Republicans at their meeting.
“There are different ideas on what to put in the first package and what in the second, and we’re trying to build consensus around those ideas,” Johnson told reporters.
The speaker also said that he believes Congress in coming weeks will pursue a continuing resolution, or CR, that would fund federal agencies into March. Current funding is set to expire on Dec. 20.
Before moving a first reconciliation bill, the House and Senate will need to agree on a budget resolution to unlock the “reconciliation” tool they plan to use to bypass the filibuster. Aides said senators hope to do that by the end of January and then move quickly to complete the first bill by March 31.
“We have the trifecta for two years. About 18 months is all we’re really going to have to really get things done,” Republican Senator Mike Rounds told reporters.
Democrats also leaned heavily on reconciliation to pass legislation when they held control of both chambers during the first two years of President Joe Biden’s term.
Republican Senator Rand Paul, a fiscal hawk, raised concerns about the plan’s cost.
“This is not a fiscally conservative notion,” Paul said. “So at this point, I’m not for it, unless there are significant spending cuts attached.”
Extending Trump’s tax cuts for individuals and small businesses will add $4 trillion to the current $36 trillion in total US debt over 10 years.
Trump also promised voters generous new tax breaks, including ending taxes on Social Security, overtime and tip income and restoring deductions for car loan interest.
The tab is likely to reach $7.75 trillion above the CBO baseline over 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-partisan fiscal watchdog group.