Donald Trump is determined to avoid accountability before the general election, and, so far, the U.S. Supreme Court is helping him.
Trump has no legal ground whatsoever to delay a ruling in his plea for presidential immunity. The reason Trump has nevertheless sought to slow down the immunity appeals process is obvious: to postpone the trial date, hopefully pushing it into a time when, as president, he would control the Department of Justice and thus could squash the prosecution altogether. The Supreme Court has shamed itself by being a party to this, when the sole issue before the Court is presidential immunity. By contrast, Special Counsel Jack Smith has both law and policy on his side in seeking a prompt determination on immunity and a speedy trial soon thereafter. Yet the Court has ignored all that.
David A. Graham: The cases against Trumpa guide
The Supreme Courts lollygagging is reflected in its scheduling the immunity case for a leisurely April 25 hearing. Its too late to do anything about that now, but the Court has an opportunity to correct course following oral argument. The justices should press Trumps counsel on what possible legitimate reason he has to oppose a speedy resolution of the appeal. And then they should rule with dispatch because there is still time, albeit barely, to vindicate the publics right to a speedy trial.
Lets recap how we arrived at the present moment. After Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled against Trumps claim of presidential immunity on December 1 and Trump appealed that ruling to the D.C. Circuit, Smith asked the Supreme Court to hear the appeal immediately, leapfrogging the delay of the circuit-level argument and decision. Trump opposed that, and the Supreme Court declined Smiths invitation. The circuit court expedited its appeal and on February 6 issued its decision, again rejecting Trumps immunity argument in toto. Trump then sought a stay in the Supreme Court, and advocated various measures to slow the Courts hearing of the case. The Supreme Court then deliberated for a couple of weeks before accepting the case for review, and not scheduling the argument until two months lateron the very last day of oral arguments for this session.
Were he not seeking to avoid any trial in advance of the general election so he could maximize the chances of becoming the next president of the United States, Trump would have an interest in a speedy resolution of the immunity question, in contrast to the foot-dragging positions he has advocated throughout the litigation of this issue. Anyone with a legitimate claim of immunity has every interest in not suffering a single day more under the opprobrium of multiple criminal charges, not to mention being under pretrial bail conditions and a gag order. (Trumps lawyers have argued against his existing gag order, saying it sweeps so broadly as to undermine their clients ability to campaign for the presidency.)
The law itself recognizes the need for speed on this issue. With questions of immunity, courts permit an appeal in advance of a trial and forgo the usual rule that appeals are permitted only after a verdict is reached. The hope, in allowing for this, is to relieve someone from the opprobrium and burden of a trial, if the defendant is indeed immune. For the Court to set such a prolonged scheduleantithetical to the appropriate time frame for the only issue actually before the justicesspeaks volumes about the role the Court has chosen to play in advancing the interests of the former president over the rule of law.
The government has its own interests in seeking a prompt resolution of the immunity issue and a speedy criminal trial (and it has the same interest as a defendant in not subjecting someone to criminal charges who is immune from prosecution). But before delving into the governments interests, lets first dispense with a red herring: Special Counsel Smith is not disputing that Trump should be accorded sufficient time to prepare for trial. An inviolable constitutional safeguard is that all criminal defendants must be able to exercise their procedural rights to prepare. Judge Chutkan already weighed the parties competing claims. Her decision on a trial date fell well within the mark for similar cases, and that ruling is not on appeal (despite the Supreme Courts behaving as if it were).
The district judges selected timeline (seven months from the August 1 indictment), in a case whose facts and substantial evidence were already available to the defendant, was longer than deadlines set all around the country. By way of comparison, next door in the more conservative Virginia district, defendants routinely go to trial at great speed, without conservative commentators going to the barricades over alleged violations of the rights of the accused. That Trump is a rich, white, and politically powerful man does not mean he should be accorded more (or fewer) rights than others. And Chutkan has said that when the case returns to her, she will give Trump more time to prepare.
David A. Graham: Judge Chutkans impossible choice
With Trumps rights intact, then, Smith has several legitimate grounds for the immunity appeal to be decided expeditiously and a trial to start as promptly as possible. DOJ internal policy prohibits taking action in a case for the purpose of choosing sides in or affecting the outcome of an election. That is unquestionable and not in dispute here. Rather, the point is that well-established neutral criminal-justice principles support a speedy trial. This trials outcome, of course, is not known in advance, and it may lead some voters to think better or worse of the defendant and the current presidential administration depending on the evidence and the outcome.
Moreover, the public has a profound interest in a fair and speedy trial. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court, the Speedy Trial Act was designed not just to benefit defendants but also to serve the public interest. The refrain that justice too long delayed is justice denied has unmistakable resonance in this criminal context. The special counsels briefs in the D.C. case are replete with references to this well-settled case law. This means that even when the accused is seeking to delay his day in court, that does not alter the prosecutors obligation to see to it that the case is brought on for trial, as the Supreme Court has well articulated. Many defendants seek to avoid the day of reckoninghence Edward Bennett Williamss famous quip that for the defense, an adjournment is equivalent to an acquittal. The law provides that the public, the prosecution, and most emphatically the courts need not oblige that stratagem.
Whats more, when a defendant seeks to postpone a trial until a point at which he can no longer be prosecuted, the Justice Department may request the trial be held before that deadline. The DOJs interest in deterrence and accountability warrants this action. If Trump should win the election, he will become immune as president from criminal trial for at least four years (and perhaps forever by seeking dismissal of the federal case with prejudice or testing the efficacy of granting himself a pardon). The Justice Department can accordingly uphold the public interest in deterrence and accountability by seeking the prompt conviction of the leader of an insurrection. This DOJ need not advance the goals of a future administration led by that very oathbreaking insurrectionist.
Another objective of criminal punishment is specific deterrence, ensuring the defendant herself does not commit offenses in the future. Given the grand jurys determination that Trump committed felonies to try to interfere with the 2020 election, there are strong law-enforcement reasons to obtain a conviction to specifically deter Trump. Indeed, in proposing a trial date to Judge Chutkan, Smith quoted Justice Alito, on behalf of the whole Court, that speedy trials serve the public interest by preventing extended pretrial delay from impairing the deterrent effect of punishment.
Trumps public denigration of the legal systemthe incssant claims that the criminal case is a witch huntalso gives a nation committed to the rule of law a vital interest in holding a public trial where a jury can assess Trumps actions. Trials can thus serve to restore faith in the justice system.
It is worth noting that when the government seeks its day in court, it simultaneously affords the defendant his day in courtproviding him more process, not less. Indeed, the Department of Justices so-called 60-day rulewhich generally forbids it from taking overt actions in non-public cases with respect to political candidates and closely related people right before an electionis there to avoid a federal prosecutor hurling untested new allegations against a political candidate precisely because he would not have time to clear his reputation before the election. Here, the government is seeking to provide just that forum for Trump to clear his name before the electionto test the criminal allegations against the highest legal standard we have for adjudicating factsand yet right-wing critics attack Smith. Trump of course wants to avoid that test, but that is an interest the courts should abjure.
The justices still have time to get back on track. Trumps claim that presidents have absolute immunity should be an easy issue to resolve given these criminal charges. Whether a president should have criminal immunity in some specific circumstances is an abstract question for another day, because efforts to stay in office and use the levers of the presidency are certainly not those specific circumstances. The appeals have delayed matters long enough at the expense of the right of the American people to a fair and speedy trial. Let them not stand in the way of ever having a trial at all.
The first day of the 2025 MLB draft is complete! The Washington Nationals selected Eli Willits with the No. 1 pick, opting for the prep shortstop — who might be more likely to sign below slot — in a draft with no clear-cut top prospect. And there were plenty of other intriguing selections as the first three rounds unfolded Sunday night.
The Seattle Mariners had to have been thrilled to have Kiley McDaniel’s No. 1-ranked prospect, Kade Anderson, fall to them at No. 3, and Ethan Holliday was selected at No. 4 by his famous father’s former squad the Colorado Rockies.
We asked ESPN baseball insiders Alden Gonzalez, Jesse Rogers and David Schoenfield to break down their favorite and most head-scratching moves of the draft’s first night, as well as to predict which players will bring the most to their new teams in the long term.
A lot of us were thrown for a loop by the first two selections. What do you make of the Nationals taking Ethan Willits at No. 1 and the Angels picking Tyler Bremner at No. 2?
Gonzalez: I was stunned on both accounts. Though there was definitely some uncertainty around the Nationals’ approach, especially since the firing of GM Mike Rizzo, I didn’t see anybody, anywhere, projecting Willits to be their choice at No. 1 overall. But the Angels drafting Bremner was an even bigger risk. Kiley had him 18th in his latest ranking. Six pitchers were ranked ahead of him. But Bremner might be someone who can rise and impact their major league roster quickly, and the Angels are always looking for that.
Rogers: The first two picks really summed up the uncertainty of the entire draft. The Nationals’ faith in a 17-year-old will be tested over the coming years, but the pick will likely save them some money for later in this draft and give Willits time to grow. The same can be said of many of the top picks: They’re going to need time. There are far fewer sure things this year — though Bremner could be the exception. The Angles love to graduate their players quickly, and as a college arm, he could see the majors sooner rather than later. Like Willits, this could also be a cost-saving move for later spending.
Schoenfield: In a draft that not only lacked a sure-thing No. 1 overall pick but was viewed as weaker at the top than those of recent years, it’s perhaps not a huge surprise that the Nationals and Angels used their picks to strike likely underslot deals with Willits and Bremner, giving them money to spend later in the draft — which they can use on high school prospects who might have slipped, trying to buy them out from going to college. It’s a strategy teams have used with success over the years, so the drafts for the Nationals and Angels will have to be viewed in their totality and not just focused on these two players.
What was your favorite pick of the night — and which one had you scratching your head?
Gonzalez: The Rockies have done a lot of things wrong over these last few … uh, decades. But it was really cool to see them take Ethan Holliday at No. 4 after his father, Matt, starred in Colorado for so long. Outside of the top two picks, Ethan Conrad going 17th to the Cubs was my biggest surprise of the night. Kiley had him ranked 30th; others had him falling out of the first round entirely. There’s uncertainty coming off shoulder surgery. But Conrad, 21, put up a 1.238 OPS in 97 plate appearances before his season ended prematurely in March. And the dearth of college bats probably influenced a slight reach here.
Rogers: I’m loving Billy Carlson to the White Sox at No. 10. Though they lost 121 games last season, Chicago couldn’t pick higher than this spot per CBA rules — but the Sox might have gotten a top-five player. Carlson’s defense will play extremely well behind a sneaky good and young pitching staff that should keep the ball on the ground in the long term. Meanwhile, with the pick of the litter when it came to hitters — college outfielders and high school kids as well — the Pirates took a high school pitcher at No. 6. Seth Hernandez could be great, but they need hitting. A lot of it.
Schoenfield: The Mariners reportedly wanted LSU left-hander Kade Anderson all along, but they certainly couldn’t have been expecting to get him with the third pick. (Keep in mind that the Mariners were lucky in the first place to land the third pick in the lottery, so they added some good fortune on top of good luck.) They get the most polished college pitcher in the draft, one who should move quickly — and perhaps make it a little easier for Jerry Dipoto to dip into his farm system and upgrade the big league roster at the trade deadline. Even though I understand why the Angels did it, Bremner still seems a little questionable. With the second pick, you want to go for a home run, and the consensus is that Holliday or even Anderson is more likely to be a more impactful major leaguer. Bremner’s lack of a third plus pitch is an issue, and you have to wonder if the Angels are relying too much on his control — which, yes, should allow him to get to the majors — and ignoring the possible lack of upside.
Who is the one player you’d like to plant your flag on as the biggest steal of this draft?
Gonzalez: Seth Hernandez, who went sixth to the Pirates and should someday share a rotation with Paul Skenes and Jared Jones. High school pitchers are incredibly risky, especially when taken so early in the draft. But Hernandez is a great athlete who already throws hard, boasts a plus changeup and showed improvement with his breaking ball this spring. He’ll go the Hunter Greene route, from standout high school pitcher to major league ace.
Rogers: Jamie Arnold will look like a steal at No. 11, especially when he debuts in the majors well before many of the players taken around him. I’m not worried about the innings drop in 2025 — not when he was striking out 119 hitters and walking just 27. The A’s need to polish him up but will be pleased by how consistent he’ll be. You can’t go wrong with a college lefty from an ACC school — at least, the A’s didn’t.
Schoenfield: I’m going with Billy Carlson with the 10th pick — with the admitted caveat that the White Sox haven’t exactly been stellar at developing hitters. But Carlson looks like an elite defensive shortstop with plus power, and that alone can make him a valuable major leaguer. If the hit tool comes along, we’re looking at a potential star. OK, he’s Bobby Witt Jr. lite? That’s still an All-Star player.
What’s your biggest takeaway from Day 1 of this draft?
Gonzalez: The Nationals throwing a wrench into the proceedings by selecting Willits. It was a surprising choice, but in their minds an easy one. Interim general manager Mike DeBartolo called Willits the best hitter and best fielder available. And in a draft devoid of can’t-miss, high-impact talent, Willits is no doubt a solid pick — a polished hitter who should stick at shortstop and might consistently hit 20 homers and steal 20 bases at a premium position. He also might come under slot, allowing flexibility later in the draft. But his selection is what allowed Anderson to reach the Mariners at No. 3 and prompted the Rockies to draft Holliday at No. 4, among other dominoes. It set a really interesting tone.
Rogers: Things change quickly in baseball. Whereas college hitters are usually the safest bets early in the draft, this year high school position players dominated. (And they all play shortstop, at least for now.) Athleticism has returned to baseball, and draft rooms are acting accordingly.
Schoenfield: I’m agreeing with Jesse. The selection of that many prep shortstops stood out — and they all seem to hit left-handed and run well, and some of them have big power potential and a cannon for an arm. Look, the hit tool is the most important and the hardest to scout and project, so not all these kids are going to make it, but their potential is exciting and, to Jesse’s point, their wide range of tools is showing that baseball is still drawing top athletes to the sport.
Talk to economists and they will tell you that the cost of living crisis is over.
They will point towards charts showing that while inflation is still above the Bank of England’s 2% target, it has come down considerably in recent years, and is now “only” hovering between 3% and 4%.
So why does the cost of living still feel like such a pressing issue for so many households? The short answer is because, depending on how you define it, it never ended.
Economists like to focus on the change in prices over the past year, and certainly on that measure inflation is down sharply, from double-digit levels in recent years.
But if you look over the past four years then the rate of change is at its highest since the early 1990s.
But even that understates the complexity of economic circumstances facing households around the country.
For if you want a sense of how current financial conditions really feel in people’s pockets, you really ought to offset inflation against wages, and then also take account of the impact of taxes.
More on Cost Of Living
Related Topics:
That is a complex exercise – in part because no two households’ experience is alike.
But recent research from the Resolution Foundation illustrates some of the dynamics going on beneath the surface, and underlines that for many households the cost of living crisis is still very real indeed.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:32
UK inflation slows to 3.4%
The place to begin here is to recall that perhaps the best measure of economic “feelgood factor” is to subtract inflation and taxes from people’s nominal pay.
You end up with a statistic showing your real household disposable income.
Consider the projected pattern over the coming years. For a household earning £50,000, earnings are expected to increase by 10% between 2024/25 and 2027/28.
Subtract inflation projected over that period and all of a sudden that 10% drops to 2.5%.
Now subtract the real increase in payments of National Insurance and taxes and it’s down to 0.2%.
Now subtract projected council tax increases and all of a sudden what began as a 10% increase is actually a 0.1% decrease.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:29
Will we see tax rises in next budget?
Of course, the degree of change in your circumstances can differ depending on all sorts of factors. Some earners (especially those close to tax thresholds, which in this case includes those on £50,000) feel the impact of tax changes more than others.
Pensioners and those who own their homes outright benefit from a comparatively lower increase in housing costs in the coming years than those paying mortgages and (especially) rent.
Nor is everyone’s experience of inflation the same. In general, lower-income households pay considerably more of their earnings on essentials, like housing costs, food and energy. Some of those costs are going up rapidly – indeed, the UK faces higher power costs than any other developed economy.
But the ultimate verdict provides some clear patterns. Pensioners can expect further increases in their take-home pay in the coming years. Those who own their homes outright and with mortgages can likely expect earnings to outpace extra costs. But others are less fortunate. Those who rent their homes privately are projected to see sharp falls in their household income – and children are likely to see further falls in their economic welfare too.
The off-highway equipment experts at Perkins and McElroy have teamed up to develop a plug-and-play battery electric power unit designed to help equipment OEMs and upfitters to seamlessly transition from diesel to battery electric power.
Designed to occupy the same space as the companies’ diesel-engined power units, Perkins dropped its new battery power unit into the similarly new McElroy TracStar 900i pipe fusion machine (specialized equipment used to join thermoplastic pipes like HDPE or polypropylene by heat-welding them end-to-end to form a continuous length pf pipe).
Perkins’ battery electric power unit replaces the company’s proprietary 134 hp, 3.6 liter 904 Series Tier V diesel engine, enabling units that are already deployed to be quickly upgraded to electric power – and helping trade allies and development partners to easily retrofit existing equipment in order to add zero-emission options to their operational fleet.
“We’re actively helping customers navigate the shift in power system requirements, with a range of advanced power systems including electric, diesel-electric and alternative fuel compatible engines,” says Jaz Gill, vice president, global sales, marketing at Perkins. “When it comes to the innovative fully integrated battery electric power unit, it can be ‘dropped in’ to a machine to replace a diesel engine. The system consists of a Perkins battery along with inverters, motors and on-board chargers – all packaged up into a compact drop-in system to support seamless transition from diesel to electric for our customers looking to make that move.”
Advertisement – scroll for more content
McElroy believes that an electric, emissions-free power unit like this one will open new opportunities and applications for its customers.
“Their team has done a phenomenal job of integrating their battery electric system into our TracStar 900i,” explains McElroy President and CEO Chip McElroy. “We’re really excited to see what the market thinks about this concept.”
Development of the battery electric powered pipe fusion machine was completed in about nine months. Future Perkins-powered electric equipment running the 904 diesel (small excavators, telehandlers, pumps, and gensets) could be developed even more quickly. You can find out more in the company’s promo video, below.