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.
Image: Trump at Manhattan Criminal Court with his lawyers. Pic: Reuters
Image: Pic: Reuters
Supreme Court
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.
Image: Pic: AP
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.
Image: Pic Reuters
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.
Donald Trump has praised the Liberian president’s command of English – the West African country’s official language.
The US president reacted with visible surprise to Joseph Boakai’s English-speaking skills during a White House meeting with leaders from the region on Wednesday.
After the Liberian president finished his brief remarks, Mr Trump told him he speaks “such good English” and asked: “Where did you learn to speak so beautifully?”
Mr Trump seemed surprised when Mr Boakai laughed and responded he learned in Liberia.
The US president said: “It’s beautiful English.
“I have people at this table who can’t speak nearly as well.”
Mr Boakai did not tell Mr Trump that English is the official language of Liberia.
The country was founded in 1822 with the aim of relocating freed African slaves and freeborn black citizens from the US.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Later asked by a reporter if he’ll visit the continent, Mr Trump said, “At some point, I would like to go to Africa.”
But he added that he’d “have to see what the schedule looks like”.
Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden, promised to go to Africa in 2023, but only fulfilled the commitment by visiting Angola in December 2024, just weeks before he left office.
The Israeli government believes the chances of achieving a permanent ceasefire in Gaza are “questionable”.
The pessimistic assessment, in a top-level Israeli government briefing given to Sky News, comes as the Israeli Prime Minister prepares to leave Washington DC after a four-day visit which had begun with the expectation of a ceasefire announcement.
Benjamin Netanyahu will leave the US later today with the prospect of even a temporary 60-day ceasefire looking extremely unlikely this week.
Within “a week, two weeks – not a day” is how it was framed in the background briefing late on Wednesday.
Crucially, though, on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the framing from the briefing was even less optimistic: “We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement. But we achieve it? It’s questionable, but Hamas will not be there.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:44
Netanyahu arrives in US for ceasefire talks
Sky News has spoken to several Israeli officials at the top level of the government. None will be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success.
But I have been given a very clear understanding of Mr Netanyahu’s thinking.
More on Israel
Related Topics:
The Israeli position is that a permanent ceasefire (beyond the initial 60 days, which itself is yet to be agreed) is only possible if Hamas lays down its arms. “If they don’t, we’ll proceed [with the war],” said a source.
This was rejected by Hamas and by Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who reportedly told the Israelis that the redeployment map “looks like a Smotrich plan”, a reference to the extreme-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich.
My briefing of Mr Netanyahu’s position is that he has not shifted in terms of Israel’s central stated war aims. The return of the hostages and eliminating Hamas are the key objectives.
But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, it was clear from my briefing that no permanent ceasefire is possible in the Israeli government’s view without the complete removal of Hamas as a political and military entity.
Hamas is not likely to negotiate its way to oblivion.
On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, a senior Israeli official told Sky News: “We would want IDF in every square metre of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone.”
Image: Pic: Reuters
It was clear to me that Mr Netanyahu wants his stated position to be that his government has no territorial ambition for Gaza.
One quote to come from my briefing, which I am only able to attribute to a senior Israeli official, says: “[We] don’t want to govern Gaza… don’t want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas.”
Another clear indication of Mr Netanyahu’s position – a quote from the briefing, attributable only to a senior Israeli official: “You cannot have victory if you don’t clear out all the fighting forces.
“You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life.”
On the future of Gaza, it’s clear from my briefings that Mr Netanyahu continues to rule out the possibility of a two-state solution “for the foreseeable future”.
The Israeli government assessment is that the Palestinians are not going to have a state “as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state”.
On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict – the movement of the population – the briefing revealed that Mr Netanyahu’s view is that 60% of Palestinians would “choose to leave” but that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated.
“It’s not forcible eviction, it’s not permanent eviction,” a senior Israeli official said.
Critics of Israel’s war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being “voluntary”, is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened.
Reacting to Israeli Defence Minister Katz’s recent statement revealing a plan to move Palestinians into a “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza, and not let them out of that area, the official wouldn’t be drawn, except to say: “As a permanent arrangement? Of course not.”
A senior Israeli official has issued a less-than-optimistic assessment of the permanency of any ceasefire in Gaza.
Speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, the senior official said that a 60-day ceasefire “might” be possible within “a week, two weeks – not a day”.
But on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the official said: “We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement.
“But we achieve it? It’s questionable, but Hamas will not be there.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to conclude a four-day visit to Washington later today.
There had been hope that a ceasefire could be announced during the trip. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that it’s close.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:44
Netanyahu arrives in US for ceasefire talks
Speaking at a briefing for a number of reporters, the Israeli official would not be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success.
This was rejected by Hamas and by Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who reportedly told the Israelis that the redeployment map “looks like a Smotrich plan”, a reference to the extreme-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich.
The official repeated Israel’s central stated war aims of getting the hostages back and eliminating Hamas. But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, the official was clear that no permanent ceasefire would be possible without the complete removal of Hamas.
“We will offer them a permanent ceasefire,” he told Sky News. “If they agree. Fine. It’s over.
“They lay down their arms, and we proceed [with the ceasefire]. If they don’t, we’ll proceed [with the war].”
On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, the official said: “We would want IDF in every square meter of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone…”
He added: “[We] don’t want to govern Gaza… don’t want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas…”
Image: Pic: Reuters
The official said the Israeli government had “no territorial designs for Gaza”.
“But [we] don’t want Hamas there,” he continued. “You have to finish the job… victory over Hamas. You cannot have victory if you don’t clear out all the fighting forces.
“You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life.”
On the future of Gaza, the official ruled out the possibility of a two-state solution “for the foreseeable future”.
“They are not going to have a state in the foreseeable future as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state. It doesn’t make a difference if they are the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, it’s just a difference of tactics.”
On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict – the movement of the population – the official predicted that 60% of Palestinians would “choose to leave”.
But he claimed that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated, adding: “It’s not forcible eviction, it’s not permanent eviction.”
Critics of Israel’s war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being “voluntary,” is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened.
Reacting to Israeli Defence Minister Katz’s recent statement revealing a plan to move Palestinians into a “humanitarian city” in southern Gaza, and not let them out of that area, the official wouldn’t be drawn, except to say: “As a permanent arrangement? Of course not.”