Politics
Donald Trump’s Claim for Presidential Immunity Sparks Controversy Amid Legal Battles

(CTN News) – Former President Donald Trump issued an all-caps social media message at 1:59 a.m. ET Thursday, claiming that presidents who “cross the line” should be awarded “total immunity.”
It is an extension of Trump’s lawyers‘ broad immunity claim in their efforts to avoid indictment by special counsel Jack Smith for the former president’s efforts to influence the 2020 presidential election results.
An appeals court in Washington, DC, will soon rule on the legal merits, albeit the three-judge panel seemed doubtful during oral arguments last week.
As he travels from the campaign trail to the courts, Trump is making a political case, and if voters send him to the White House in November, they will effectively be supporting his claims.
Donald Trump is the clear favourite to win the Republican nomination for the third time in a row, and CNN‘s most recent projection has Trump leading President Joe Biden in enough states to recapture the White House.
Trump’s claim to literally unchecked power as president (he has also stated that he would be a dictator for a day to deal with immigration at the border and focus on oil drilling) contradicts what every American schoolchild is taught about a federal system of government based on separation of powers.
Norm Eisen, a CNN legal pundit who defended House Democrats during Trump‘s first impeachment trial, believes that no one is above the law. “Everyone is subject to the Constitution.””No, you cannot cross the queue,” Eisen responded.
He contended that granting a president full immunity would lead to a dictatorship.
Late last year, a group of former Republican administration officials filed an amicus brief in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, claiming that the immunity idea was “absurd,” “dangerous,” and would remove the guardrails from one of the most powerful people on the planet.
“The Constitution does not confer any kind of immunity upon former Presidents for conduct that violates the criminal laws of the United States and instead contemplates that a former President might be prosecuted for crimes committed in office,” the letter went on to say.
They also added some interesting historical facts, such as former President Ulysses Grant being caught speeding in a carriage through Washington’s streets. He was held and then fined.
Former President Bill Clinton admitted to providing false testimony as part of a deal to avoid punishment. When former President Gerald Ford issued a pardon and former President Richard Nixon accepted it, both men recognised that presidents are subject to the law.
Donald Trump’s Attempt to Alter 2020 Election: Unprecedented in U.S. History
If anyone believes Donald Trump means what he says on social media, go back to his tweets prior to the January 6, 2021 insurrection, in which he openly advocated attempting to overturn the 2020 election results.
His statement from early Thursday morning is worth reading in its entirety, along with some background. What follows are his words (capitalised) along with some background information provided by me.
Since 1789, 46 presidents had served, including Trump during his first term, and Trump, hoping to be the 47th, would be the first to argue that a president should have “absolute immunity.”
Donald Trump is currently facing four different criminal cases. In addition to the federal action, a Georgia case concerns Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Smith is also accusing Trump of mishandling sensitive information after he left the White House. The Manhattan district attorney also indicted Trump for hush money payments made around the 2016 election.
To be true, US presidents have frequently bypassed Congress to exercise their power. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, a legal principle that allows persons who believe they are being held illegally in prison or detention to dispute it, in order to imprison people outside of the court system. Following World War II, presidents launched conflicts abroad.
These presidents would most likely claim that, as presidents, they are entitled to some legal protection in order to implement policies and lead the country. Their actions were also scrutinised by the courts, which have not hesitated to hold presidents accountable. All presidents practiced peaceful power transfer.In contrast, Trump actively sought to retain power.
Donald Trump’s attempt to influence the 2020 presidential election does not appear to be an accident or a simple mistake. It was a comprehensive operation that included persuading state officials to “find” more votes, recruiting phoney electors in key states, and pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes.
Except for Donald Trump, no president in US history has been prosecuted after leaving office. Trump argues that Democrats and Biden are persecuting him, but this is false. He was indicted by Smith, a special counsel appointed specifically to separate the Trump cases from the Department of Justice.
Donald Trump was not indicted at the end of his administration, but years later, following a large-scale investigation by a select House committee led by Democrats and including some Republicans, he heard testimony from mostly Republican witnesses. Smith has applied much of that approach to his own study.
Ultimately, Donald Trump was indicted in two federal cases by grand juries made up of ordinary Americans in Washington, DC and Florida. Meanwhile, Trump has stated that if reelected, he will use the Department of Justice to target his political opponents.
Is this a veiled admission that his acts as President breached the law? Or is it a reference to last week’s court proceedings, when his lawyer told judges that a hypothetical president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to kill a political rival could only be tried if impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate?
Certainly, there are grey regions between good and bad. Consider a country in which the head of state has no obligation to investigate what is legal, beneficial, or harmful.
This is a good place to point out Donald Trump’s circular thinking. In arguing for absolute immunity, his counsel contended that a president could only be prosecuted if convicted by the Senate in an impeachment trial. This contradicts what Trump’s supporters asserted during his impeachment trial, when they argued against impeachment because he may still face criminal charges.
Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution distinguishes the impeachment process from indictment and prosecution, noting that the impeached person is still “subject to indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment, according to law.”
This is a clear attempt to conflate his own legal difficulties with the larger debate about policing in the US. Almost no one believes that rogue cops should be immune to prosecution.
This looks to be Donald Trump’s attempt at humility. He consistently overestimates his own accomplishments as president.
Donald Trump’s attorneys argued that a president should be immune from prosecution for actions such as providing false information to Congress prior to deploying US troops (a reference to former President George W. Bush) or authorising the death of a US citizen abroad via drone strike (a reference to former President Barack Obama).
However, neither of those presidents were prosecuted. And neither Donald Trump nor Biden has been shy about deploying US military power.
An appeals court is currently considering the full immunity claim. The judges were all extremely sceptical. Donald Trump appears to expect or hope that the US Supreme Court, where he nominated three of the nine justices, will eventually weigh in.
The Supreme Court has ordered that the appeals court reconsider the matter. Meanwhile, the first criminal case against him, for attempting to manipulate election results, has been temporarily halted.

Politics
U.N. Special Rapporteur Calls on Thailand’s Banks to Cut-Off Myanmar Junta

The U.N special rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar has said the Bank of Thailand, commercial banks, and the anti-money laundering office are working on measures to stop the Myanmar Junta from acquiring weapons through Thailand’s banking system.
Tom Andrews the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in Myanmar, said that some banks commercial in Thailand had aided Myanmar Junta’s by facilitating transactions that supplied military equipment to the Junta through the international banking system.
He called on the Bank of Thailand and financial institutions to do more to stop Myanmar’s junta acquiring weapons which they use on civilians to maintain power.
The special rapporteur was in Bangkok to address a parliamentary committee on security, he called on the Thai government to stop financial transactions that help supply weapons to Myanmar’s junta in line with a plan promoted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) that sets out an end to violence as a first step toward peace.
In his 2023 report “The Billion Dollar Death Trade,” Andrews noted that Singapore had implemented a clear policy opposing the transfer of weapons to Myanmar.

Thai Baht – File Image
Thailand’s Banks Lacked Clear Policy
As a result, exports of weapons and related materials from Singapore-registered entities using the formal banking system dropped from almost U.S. $120 million in fiscal year 2022 to just over $10 million over the next 12 months.
However, he said Thailand had no explicit policy position opposing weapons transfer to the Myanmar Junta, which saw exports from Thai-registered entities more than double in 2023, from just over $60 million to nearly $130 million.
He called on Thai Government to conduct a thorough investigation into transfers as Singapore had done into its companies’ dealings.
Andrews told the the committee that five Thai commercial banks and Thai-based companies were assisting Myanmar’s junta obtain weapons, dual-technology items and jet fuel, enabling Military Junta to conduct atrocities against the people.
But said he had found no evidence that the Thai government was involved or was aware of the transactions or that Thai commercial banks had knowledge.

Photo courtesy of The Nation
Banks Condemn Myanmar Junta Violence
Meanwhile representatives from Thailand’s central bank, anti-money laundering office and the commercial banks named in the report were also present at the parliamentary meeting at government house in Bangkok.
A representative of the Bank of Thailand said officials were working with the commercial banks and the anti-money laundering office to make sure that enhanced oversight was properly practiced.
The Thai Bankers Association that was also at the parliamentary meeting said it did not have the means to investigate and monitor such irregularities beyond Thailand’s borders.
Mr. Pongsit Chaichatpornsuk, a Thai Bankers Association representative told the committee that If government security agencies tell us, we will stop transactions. We don’t support arms procurement by Myanmar Junta or any military government to violate human rights.
Thailand, which shares a long border with Myanmar and hosts many thousands of refugees fleeing conflict there, has tried to promote dialogue between Myanmar’s military rulers and opposition forces but no progress has been made.
This Article was first published in RFA
Politics
People Rushing Sign Online Petition to Impeach South Korea’s President Crash Site

The Speaker of the National Assembly of South Korea said in a statement that an online petition calling for South Korea’s President Mr. Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment crashed due to the enormous number of individuals attempting to sign the petition. Saying the National Assembly would resolve the matter as quickly as possible.
Since the petition was launch on the National Assembly’s website on June 20, more than 811,000 people have signed it. The petition urges Parliament to introduce legislation to impeach President Yoon on the grounds that he is unfit for office.
Late on June 30, National Assembly Speaker Mr. Woo Won-shik issued an apology for the disturbance and stated that Parliament would take action to protect the public’s fundamental rights.
People attempting to access the petition on July 1 experienced delays of up to four hours. At one point, an error message indicated that more than 30,000 individuals were waiting to access the site.
South Korea’s Parliament Hesitant
The online petition accuses Yoon of corruption, escalating the risk of conflict with North Korea, and endangering South Koreans’ health by failing to prevent Japan from leaking treated radioactive water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant.
By law, Parliament must assign every petition signed by more than 50,000 people to a committee, which will then decide whether to put it to a vote in the assembly.
However, the opposition Democratic Party, which has a majority in Parliament, is hesitant to turn the petition into an impeachment bill, according to media reports, with a spokesperson stating that the party has yet to address the topic.
The Parliament can impeach a president with a two-thirds majority. The Constitutional Court then deliberates the motion and decides whether to remove or reinstall the president.
Meanwhile, on Monday Reuters reported North Korea criticized a joint military exercise performed this month by South Korea, Japan, and the United States, according to official media, saying such drills demonstrate the three nations’ alliance has evolved into “the Asian version of NATO”.
On Thursday, the three countries began large-scale combined military drills named “Freedom Edge” featuring navy destroyers, fighter fighters, and the nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, with the goal of strengthening defenses against missiles, submarines, and air strikes.
The drill was designed at a three-way meeting at Camp David last year to boost military cooperation amid concerns on the Korean peninsula caused by North Korea’s weapons testing.
Pyongyang will not overlook the strengthening of a military bloc led by the United States and its allies, and it would respond aggressively and decisively to defend regional peace, according to North Korea’s foreign ministry, as reported by KCNA.
Politics
Joe Biden Assures Donors He Can Still Win Presidential Election Despite Debate Concerns

(CTN News) – US President Joe Biden has convinced Democratic donors that he can still defeat Donald Trump in the November presidential election, following a dismal debate performance that raised concerns about his prospects.
On Saturday, the 81-year-old president attended a series of fundraising events in New York and New Jersey, defending his performance in CNN’s Presidential Debate.
On Thursday, Joe Biden conceded, “I didn’t have a great night, but neither did Trump” at one event.
“I promise you we’re going to win this election,” the politician declared.
Joe Biden’s debate performance was marked by difficult-to-follow and wobbly responses, generating further concerns among some Democrats about whether he is the ideal candidate to run in this high-stakes race.
Former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Joe Biden’s debate performance “wasn’t great,” while his former communications director, Kate Bedingfield, termed it “very disappointing.”
The president acknowledged the worry but committed to fighting harder.
New Jersey’s Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, attended the fundraiser alongside Mr. Biden and the First Lady, telling Mr. Biden, “We are all with you 1,000 percent.”
The Joe Biden team acknowledged that the debate did not go as planned but maintained he would not step aside for another nominee.
On Saturday, campaign chairwoman Jennifer O’Malley Dillon stated that internal post-debate polling revealed that “voters’ opinions were not changed”.
“It will not be the first time that overblown media narratives have driven temporary dips in the polls,” she told reporters.
Former President Barack Obama, a friend of Mr. Biden, admitted on social media that “bad debate nights happen”.
“This election is still a choice between someone who fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself,” said Mr. Obama.
Hours later, Mr Trump told his supporters that he saw the discussion as a “big victory” for his campaign.
“Joe Biden’s problem is not his age,” Trump, 78, added. “It is his competence. He’s quite incompetent.
Politicians were not the only ones who criticized Mr Biden’s performance.
A prominent editorial in the New York Times condemned his decision to run again as a “reckless gamble” and advised him to conduct some soul-searching this weekend.
It urged Democrats to “acknowledge that Joe Biden can’t continue his race and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place” .
Voters in the US have expressed misgivings about voting for any candidate after Thursday’s debate.
Lori Gregory, a long-time Democrat, told the BBC she “could not handle” watching the discussion, asking, “Is this the best our country can do?”
Republican Crystal Myers-Barber said it was “painful to watch,” but she also thought “Trump came across very level-headed and presidential, and Biden came across very weak.”
Democrat Shana Ziolko said she was “frustrated” by the debate and believed there was no obvious winner.
A post-debate poll conducted by liberal pollster Data for Progress revealed that 62% of potential voters who saw or read about the debate believed Trump won. Only 30% of those polled believed Mr Biden had won the debate.
Until more polling is done, fundraising could be another indicator of Joe Biden’s sustained popularity.
In a memo, chairwoman Jennifer O’Malley Dillon stated that the campaign had raised more than $27 million (£21.3 million) between the Thursday debate and Friday evening.
“After Thursday night’s debate, the Beltway class is counting Joe Biden out. “The data in battleground states, however, tells a different story,” she explained.
“This election was incredibly close before Thursday, and by every metric we’ve seen since, it remains just as close” , she commented.
Source: BBC
-
News4 years ago
Let’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
News11 years ago
Enviromental Groups Tell Mekong Leaders Lao Dam Evaluation Process Flawed
-
Health4 years ago
How Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years ago
Top Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles3 years ago
Aries Soulmate Signs
-
Entertainment3 years ago
What Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years ago
Can I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?