Donald Trump has claimed he will be arrested this week over an alleged hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
If right in his assertion, the former US president could be charged by authorities in New York within days.
But what will happen if he is indicted – and how will both sides present their case?
What Trump has said
In a post on his Truth Social platform on Saturday, Mr Trump said he expected to be arrested on Tuesday and urged his supporters to protest the indictment.
He published a long statement describing the investigation as a “political witch-hunt trying to take down the leading candidate, by far, in the Republican Party”.
“I did absolutely nothing wrong,” he said, before criticising a “corrupt, depraved and weaponised justice system”.
However, it’s worth noting a spokesperson for Mr Trump said he had not been notified of any pending arrest.
The case – that the Republican made a payment to Ms Daniels towards the end of the 2016 presidential campaign in exchange for her silence over an alleged affair – is one of several related to Mr Trump.
Advertisement
Other ongoing cases include a Georgia election interference probe and two federal investigations into his role in the 6 January insurrection in the US Capitol.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:40
Trump watches wrestling after arrest claim
What Trump will do
Mr Trump has accused Manhattan’s district attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, of targeting him for political gain, and may try to argue for the dismissal of the charges on those grounds.
He could also challenge whether the statute of limitations – five years in this instance – should have run out.
But in New York, the statute of limitations can be extended if the defendant has been out of state – Trump may argue that serving as US president should not apply.
Politically, how any possible indictment may affect Mr Trump’s chances in the 2024 presidential election is unclear.
He could be the first former US president to face criminal prosecution – right as polls show him leading other potential rivals for the Republican nomination, including controversial Florida governor Ron DeSantis.
This could lead to the unprecedented situation in which Mr Trump would stand trial as he campaigns in 2024.
If elected, he would not have the power to pardon himself of criminal charges.
In any case, Mr Trump’s lawyer Joe Tacopina told CNBC on Friday that he would surrender if charged. If he refused to come voluntarily, prosecutors could seek to have him extradited from Florida, where he currently lives.
In an ironic twist, as governor, Mr DeSantis would typically have to give formal approval for an extradition.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:16
Trump pleads the fifth in 2022 deposition video
What prosecutors will do
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office has spent nearly five years investigating Mr Trump.
It has presented evidence to a New York grand jury that relates to a £114,000 ($130,000) payment to Ms Daniels during the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign.
It is alleged the payment was given in exchange for Ms Daniels’ silence about an affair between her and Mr Trump.
Mr Trump has denied the affair and accused Ms Daniels of extortion.
Any indictment by the district attorney’s office would require Mr Trump to travel to its New York office to surrender.
But Mr Trump’s lawyers will likely arrange a date and time with authorities, as it is a white-collar case. And then his mugshot and fingerprints would be taken before appearing for arraignment in court.
Mr Trump could also be charged with falsifying business records – typically classed as a misdemeanour – after he reimbursed his former attorney Michael Cohen for the payments, falsely recorded as legal services.
To elevate it to a felony, prosecutors would have to show Mr Trump falsified records to cover up a second crime.
In any case, legal experts have estimated that any trial of the former US president would be more than a year away.
That’s why if it happened, it could coincide with the final months of a 2024 election in which Mr Trump seeks a controversial return to the White House.
Student protests against Israel’s war in Gaza continue to spread across the US, following last week’s arrest of more than 100 demonstrators at Columbia University.
There have been nearly 550 protest-related arrests in the past week at major US universities, according to a tally by news agency Reuters.
The students want universities to cut ties with companies helping Israel’s war in Gaza and, in some cases, with Israel itself.
Some universities have called in police to end the demonstrations, resulting in clashes and arrests, while others appear to be biding their time as the academic semester enters its final days.
The University of Southern California cancelled its main graduation ceremony, set for 10 May, after the arrests of 93 people at the Los Angeles campus on Wednesday.
At Boston’s Emerson College, 108 people were arrested overnight with video showing students linking arms to resist officers, who then moved forcefully through the crowd, throwing some students to the ground.
Student protester Ocean Muir said: “There were just more cops on all sides.
More from US
“It felt like we were being slowly pushed in and crushed.”
She said police lifted her by her arms and legs to carry her away and she was charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct.
Advertisement
At Emory University’s Atlanta campus, 28 people were detained and the local branch of activist group Jewish Voice For Peace said police used tear gas and tasers on protesters.
Police there admitted using “chemical irritants” but denied using rubber bullets.
Cheryl Elliott, Emory’s vice president for public safety, said the aim was to clear the area of a “disruptive encampment while holding individuals accountable to the law” but human rights groups questioned the “apparent use of excessive force” against free speech.
Charges were dropped, meanwhile, against 46 of the 60 people detained by police at the University of Texas.
At Indiana University Bloomington, police with shields and batons shoved into a line of protesters, arresting 33 people.
At City College of New York, police officers retreated from protests, to cheers from the hundreds of students gathered on the lawn on the Harlem campus.
At California State Polytechnic University in Humboldt, students have been barricaded in a campus building since Monday, with staff trying to negotiate.
At University of Connecticut one protester was arrested and tents torn down, while protests continued at Stanford University and the New Jersey campus of Princeton University.
Police cleared tents and arrested more than 100 people last week but students put the tents up again in an area where graduation ceremonies will be held in a few weeks.
The administration has given protesters until Friday to leave.
There have been accusations that some pro-Palestinian protesters have harassed or abused Jewish students but protesters blame outsiders trying to infiltrate and malign their movement.
Protest leaders admit there has been abuse directed at Jewish students but insist the protests are not antisemitic.
Some of the universities have seen counter-protests from Israel supporters.
The hearing at the Supreme Court concerned the 6 January riots, election subversion and Trump’s alleged involvement. It is a crime against democracy, at the serious end of the legal jeopardy he faces.
His lawyers argued he should be shielded by immunity from prosecution for what he did while acting as president.
The prosecution’s case is that he was acting as a private citizen, not in an official capacity.
Trump wasn’t present at the hearing in Washington DC, but he will have liked what he heard.
Advertisement
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The prevailing legal assessment is that discussions with the nine-judge panel indicate that, while they didn’t necessarily agree with his argument for immunity, they have enough questions to delay the prosecution further.
A majority appear to think that presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for their official actions, even if the exact parameters are unclear.
What is clear is that if the trial court is instructed to determine which of Trump’s allegedly illegal acts qualify for immunity as official acts, it will be an extended process that could easily push the trial beyond the November election.
Such a scenario would suit Trump. The less criminal exposure he has before America votes, the better for him.
If he can push the trial past November, and win back the White House, he can use the power of office to make the charges go away.
The New York hush money trial is the only one of four criminal prosecutions to have begun.
The Supreme Court appears set to shorten the odds on it being the only one before America goes to the polls.
It is the pressing matter of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the man who would be president, and it’s a race against time.
This stress test of the fundamentals of American democracy and rule of law gets ever more stressful.
Donald Trump managed a partial victory in the Supreme Court today, as justices delayed any potential decision on his immunity case over election riots.
Trump argued on Thursday he has total immunity over the 2020 riots and while justices in the Supreme Court were not convinced by his arguments, some raised the point he may have some level of immunity – and delayed any potential decision on that until June.
If they then rule the former president does have a level of immunity, it could kick the issue back into lower courts to decide what that level is, and knock back any potential decision to beyond the November election.
On Thursday, Trump, who made history as his country’s first ex-leader to face a criminal trial, was also fighting on two other separate legal fronts. They include:
• His hush money trial in New York where he is accused of falsifying business records after allegedly paying money to porn actress Stormy Daniels to “cover up an affair”.
• His defamation case, brought by writer E Jean Carroll – a judge rejected Trump’s attempt to throw out the verdict against him, leaving him facing an $83.3m (£66.5m) payout.
And adding to Trump’s legal woes, his former lawyers and associates were indicted on Wednesday in a 2020 election-related scheme in Arizona.
During proceedings, justices appeared likely to reject Trump’s claims of total immunity, but delayed any ruling to make a decision over what specific immunity he may or may not have.
Trump, 77, had even asked to skip his New York criminal proceedings to sit in on the Supreme Court’s special sessions.
In Washington, the lawyer representing the special counsel told the court it had never been previously recognised what kind of immunity Trump was actually seeking.
Chief justice John Roberts said he was concerned if presidents were not immune, the country would rely on “good faith” to prevent abusive prosecutions against presidents.
He told the special counsel’s lawyer, Michael Dreeben: “Now you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment.
“And reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases – I’m not suggesting here [Smith’s indictment of Trump].”
The Supreme Court is expected to release its opinions by the end of June over whether Trump has immunity or not.
With five justices appearing likely to reject Trump’s claims of absolute immunity, some suggested the former president may have some level of immunity.
If the eventual ruling reflects that, lower courts may be required to sort out the specifics of this – which could push any eventual decision past the November election.
Hush money
Meanwhile, in New York, Trump was once again present in Manhattan’s criminal court, accused of falsifying business records.
David Pecker, boss of AMI who signed a no-prosecution deal to testify, described shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy up rights to potentially damaging stories.
The National Enquirer, the court heard, bought up a sordid story from a New York City doorman as well as accusations of an extramarital affair with a former Playboy model to stop the claims getting out.
But Mr Pecker reached his breaking point with Stormy Daniels – a porn actress who was allegedly paid by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, to keep quiet over her claims of a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. Something he denies.
Mr Pecker told jurors his publication had been contacted by Ms Daniels’s representatives who said they could buy her story for $120,000 (£96,000) if it decided right away.
However, the publishing boss refused to. He told Mr Cohen: “I am not paying for this story. I didn’t want to be involved in this from the beginning.”
After that, a cross-examination of Mr Pecker began, with one of Trump’s lawyers, Emil Bove, taking centre stage.
Gag order
Hanging over Thursday’s hush money proceedings were allegations that Trump, once again, violated a gag order.
The order restricted Trump’s public speech regarding jurors, potential witnesses and some other individuals involved in the case.
Judge Juan Merchan was already considering whether to hold Trump in contempt and fine him for what prosecutors alleged were 10 separate violations of the order.
But on Thursday the prosecution ticked off fresh instances of alleged breaches.
These were additional remarks made about Mr Cohen, and a comment Trump made about the jury being “95% Democrats”, among other things.
But Trump was previously dismissive about the threat of having to pay up when speaking outside court, saying he had “no idea” whether he would be fined.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
While things may have went his way partly in the Supreme Court, a judge rejected Trump’s attempt to get a defamation verdict against him thrown out.
Writer E Jean Carroll said Trump defamed her after she accused him of raping her decades ago.
The court ordered Trump to pay $83.3m in damages, and on Thursday, US district judge Lewis Kaplan said Trump was not entitled to a new trial or judgement, so had to pay up.