(NEW YORK) — The Manhattan district attorney’s office said Tuesday it would not oppose former President Donald Trump’s request to file a motion arguing that his conviction should be tossed, a move that will almost certainly delay Trump’s sentencing, which is currently set for July 11.
“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” assistant district attorney Josh Steinglass wrote in a letter to Judge Juan Merchan.
Prosecutors asked for two weeks to respond to the defense motion.
On Monday, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling that President Donald Trump has some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken to overturn results of the 2020 election, Trump’s attorneys sent a letter to Judge Merchan asking to have his New York conviction thrown out, according to sources.
Trump will be arguing that his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records be thrown out because of the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
Judge Merchan has yet to rule on Trump’s request to file his motion or made any determination about the sentencing date.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday handed down a historic decision on whether a former president is shielded from criminal liability for “official acts” taken while in the White House.
In the case, Donald Trump aimed to secure such immunity to try to quash the federal election subversion prosecution brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
Smith charged Trump with four felony counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, over his efforts to hold onto power after his 2020 election loss. Trump pleaded not guilty and has denied any wrongdoing. The trial was set to start on March 4, but has been delayed while the high court considers the immunity question.
Here’s how the news is developing. All times Eastern:
Jul 01, 8:21 PM ‘There are no kings in America’: Biden reacts to SCOTUS ruling on immunity
President Joe Biden addressed the Supreme Court’s historic decision on presidential immunity Monday, saying the ruling “fundamentally changed” the limits to America’s highest office.
“This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America,” Biden said.
“Each of us is equal before the law,” he continued. “No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States.”
“Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” Biden said.
President Joe Biden speaks in the Cross Hall of the White House, July 1, 2024, in Washington. Addressing the charges Trump faces for actions taken to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Biden said, “The public has a right to know the answer about what happened on Jan. 6 before they are asked to vote again this year.”
Ahead of the November election, Biden said the American people have to decide if they want to “entrust” the presidency once again to Donald Trump, “now knowing he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases, whenever he wants to do it.”
President Joe Biden addressed the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday, which said former President Donald Trump is entitled to some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken to overturn results of the 2020 election.
SCOTUS’ 6-3 decision made it unlikely the former president would be tried before the November 2024 election.
“Today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do,” Biden said.
“This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden continued, warning, “The only limits will be self-imposed posed by the president alone.”
Biden delivered his remarks from the White House’s Cross Hall Monday.
Jul 01, 6:17 PM Biden set to deliver remarks on SCOTUS ruling
President Joe Biden will deliver remarks on the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling this evening from the White House at 7:45 p.m. ET.
Biden is returning to the White House from Camp David, where his family, including first lady Jill Biden, son Hunter Biden and their grandchildren have been for a pre-scheduled gathering.
Jul 01, 4:05 PM Supreme Court’s liberal justices warn of ‘law-free zone’
While both the conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices agreed its ruling has far-reaching implications for the future of the presidency, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the impact would be chilling.
“Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark,” she wrote. “The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding,” she said in her dissent.
Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jackson described the majority’s threshold for deciding immunity on a case-by-case basis as complicated and convoluted. The model they laid out, she said, could leave presidents feeling more emboldened to act unlawfully.
“Having now cast the shadow of doubt over when — if ever — a former President will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act ‘manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority, they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike,” she wrote.
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against the liberal dissents, saying they “strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.”
“Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. Accounting for that reality — and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives.”
-ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:39 PM Seal Team 6 hypothetical assassination referenced in dissent
In their dissents, both justices Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
In their dissents, both Sotomayor and Jackson addressed the question of whether a president would have immunity from criminal prosecution for acts of murder — including ordering the assassination of a political rival.
When the president “uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor said in her dissent. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”
ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw said on ABC News Live Monday that she agreed with the dissenting opinion that ordering the hypothetical assassination could be considered immune from criminal prosecution.
“In terms of the application of this immunity to very extreme scenarios like ordering an assassination, I’m not sure the majority successfully explains why this rule would not shield that kind of conduct if it’s engaged in an official capacity, even if it’s wildly wrong and dangerous and destructive,” she said. “If that conduct is done in official capacity, I think the dissent is right on this opinion’s own logic. It would be immune, and that is a genuinely chilling implication of this case.”
The SEAL Team 6 assassination hypothetical was raised during oral arguments on the case in April.
Sotomayor raised it first while questioning Trump attorney John Sauer. She pointed back to an earlier exchange Sauer had in a lower court proceeding.
“I’m going to give you a chance to say … if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him — is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked during oral arguments.
“It would depend on the hypothetical,” Sauer answered. “We could see that could well be an official act.”
-ABC News’ Meredith Deliso and Alexandra Hutzler
Jul 01, 3:34 PM White House spokesman reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House Counsel’s Office, released a statement about the ruling stating, “As President Biden has said, nobody is above the law.”
“That is a core American principle and how our system of justice works. We need leaders like President Biden who respect the justice system and don’t tear it down,” Sams added.
-ABC News’ Selina Wang
Jul 01, 3:24 PM Election interference judge does not mention Supreme Court decision during hearing
Washington, D.C., District Judge Tanya Chutkan did not mention or make any remarks about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling during her first public hearing on Monday since the Supreme Court court sent Trump’s Jan 6 case back to her.
At one point during a status hearing for a Jan 6. defendant, when Judge Chutkan was asked about a trial date, she said “my calendar is…” as she made a face and laughed.
The heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee both released statements following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
RNC chair Michael Whatley said “today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and a reminder that the Constitution outweighs the left’s weaponization of the judicial system against President Trump and his allies.”
DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, however, argued the “ruling only underscores the stakes of this election,” in light of Trump’s repeated threats against his opponents.
“The only thing standing between Donald Trump and his threats to our democracy is President Biden — and the American people will stand once again on the side of democracy this November,” he said.
Jul 01, 12:33 PM Trump argues decision ‘should end all’ cases against him
Trump spoke about the ruling in another post on his social media platform arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision “should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me.”
The former president specifically cited his Manhattan hush-money case, in which Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. He is slated to be sentenced this month in the hush-money case.
Trump also cited the New York attorney general civil case against his businesses’ fraudulent practices and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.
Jul 01, 12:11 PM Barrett disagrees with ruling’s stance on evidence
Although Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority on the presidential immunity case, she dissented on a section of the ruling that limits what evidence can be used against a president at trial.
Barrett brought up a hypothetical situation of a bribery case against a president, arguing while there are clear federal laws that prohibit the commander-in-chief from accepting bribes, excluding evidence would “hamstring the prosecution.”
“To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability,” she wrote in her concurring opinion.
“I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury … But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis,” Barrett added.
-ABC News’ Katherine Faulders
Jul 01, 11:47 AM Trump fundraises off immunity ruling
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign sent out an email fundraising off the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
“BREAKING FROM TRUMP: Supreme Court gives TOTAL IMMUNITY for official acts!” Trump campaign’s fundraising email said.
“Official acts cannot be illegally prosecuted – BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRACY &; OUR CONSTITUTION!” the fundraising email continues, calling the case a “witch hunt” and saying it “should’ve never happened.”
Jul 01, 11:34 AM Jackson argues ruling ‘breaks new and dangerous ground’
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissent in the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling arguing it “breaks new and dangerous ground.”
“So, how does this new Presidential accountability model work? An initial problem is the lack of clarity regarding what this new model entails,” she wrote.
Jackson added that the ruling “unilaterally altered the balance of power between the three coordinate branches of our Government as it relates to the Rule of Law, aggrandizing power in the Judiciary and the Executive, to the detriment of Congress.”
Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor both penned dissents. Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:16 AM ‘It makes a mockery of the principle … that no man is above the law,’ Sotomayor says in dissent
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back against the conservative justices’ ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity case.
Sotomayor contended in her dissent that the ruling “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
She argued the conservative justices invented “an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.”
“That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force,” she added.
Sotomayor also said the ruling opens up the possibility that when a president uses their official powers in any way, they will be “insulated from criminal prosecution.”
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor in her dissent.
The split 6-3 opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Jul 01, 11:03 AM Special counsel Jack Smith declines to comment
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment on the Supreme Court ruling, a spokesperson told ABC News.
The court’s ruling will affect whether former President Donald Trump faces a federal trial this year on four felony counts brought by Smith, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and obstruction of an official proceeding, for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.
Jul 01, 10:48 AM Trump reacts to SCOTUS ruling
Former President Donald Trump released a statement about the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in a post on his social media platform.
“BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” Trump wrote on Monday morning.
Jul 01, 10:44 AM Biden campaign reacts to SCOTUS ruling
A senior Biden campaign advisor released a statement about the court’s ruling on immunity, stating, “Today’s ruling doesn’t change the facts, so let’s be very clear about what happened on January 6: Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”
The campaign argued that Trump “thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”
Jul 01, 10:36 AM Supreme Court rules president has no immunity for unofficial acts
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on the immunity case against former President Donald Trump stating, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.
The ruling, in which all of the liberal justices dissented,” added, “The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
Jul 01, 9:41 AM ‘It’s a BIG decision,’ Trump says
With the Supreme Court poised to rule in Trump’s presidential immunity case, former President Donald Trump is continuing to push his defense, saying Monday’s decision with be a “big” and “important” one.
“It is a BIG decision, an important decision, a decision which can affect the Success or Failure of our Country for decades to come. We want a GREAT Country, not a weak, withering, and ineffective one. STRONG PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY IS A MUST!” Trump posted on his social media platform on Sunday.
Jul 01, 9:35 AM View from Trump’s legal world ahead of today’s ruling
While Trump’s team is focused on the implications this ruling will have on the Jan. 6 case, they are also particularly interested in how this could affect his other outstanding criminal cases.
Why’s that?
Trump’s lawyers have an outstanding motion to dismiss the Florida classified documents case based on presidential immunity.
While it’s not likely that case will go to trial before the election, the judge in that case, Judge Aileen Cannon, has indicated she wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision before she entertains that motion. And, given her unpredictability, the Trump legal team believes the ruling could give Cannon yet another avenue to throw the case’s future in doubt.
The best case scenario for Trump’s lawyers would be for the Supreme Court to rule he has full immunity for any actions taken while in office, which is not likely. The worst case would be that the justices uphold lower court rulings that said criminal laws apply to ex-presidents like they apply to everyone.
What do they expect? Not a full win for either side.
If the Supreme Court says its mandate could go into effect immediately, Trump’s lawyers expect Judge Tanya Chutkan to get the ball rolling very soon after in the Jan. 6 case and likely schedule a briefing in the next week and a status conference once the mandate is docketed.
There would also likely be action in Florida, where Judge Cannon could move to schedule a briefing or an in-person hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Jul 01, 9:19 AM ‘Disturbing’: What legal experts had to say about immunity arguments
When the justices appeared open to the idea of some level of immunity for former presidents, it was a shock for many veteran court observers.
“It was surprising to hear, at least from some of the justices, the possibility that a president could somehow commit criminal misconduct for which they could never be held liable in court,” said constitutional law expert Michael Gerhardt. “I think that has struck many people as just, up until now, inconceivable.”
One point that stood out to Gerhardt was when Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could.
“The answer that she got was one of the most disturbing I’ve ever heard at the Supreme Court,” he said.
Read more about reaction to the April arguments here.
Jul 01, 6:41 AM Five key takeaways from arguments heard in April
The high court in April heard historic arguments on whether former President Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump denies all wrongdoing and insists he should have “absolute immunity” for any “official acts” while in office.
Former President Donald Trump speaks at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Road to Majority Policy Conference at the Washington Hilton, June 22, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s ruling that former President Donald Trump is presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for official acts carried out while in office is likely to have a ripple effect on each of his four criminal cases, potentially resulting in delays and complications that will further bog them down, experts told ABC News.
In the months leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s lawyers invoked presidential immunity as a defense in each of the four cases, including moving to dismiss Trump’s Florida and Georgia cases as well as exclude evidence in Trump’s New York hush money case.
While Monday’s ruling entitling Trump to immunity from prosecution for official acts while president will most directly impact his federal election interference case — potentially reshaping charges faced by the former president related to his conduct to overturn the 2020 election results — the Supreme Court’s decision could provide Trump’s lawyers additional ammunition to challenge and delay the other cases.
Following Monday’s landmark Supreme Court decision, Trump’s lawyers made their first move to capitalize on the ruling by seeking to throw out the former president’s conviction in New York for falsifying business records.
Experts suggested that both Trump’s federal and state election interference cases — brought by both special counsel Jack Smith and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis — could be reshaped to conform to Monday’s decision. Trump’s Florida criminal case — related to the alleged retention of classified documents — could face further delays to address the Supreme Court ruling.
“Trump’s lawyers are now going to make every argument they can make based on the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Pace University School of Law professor Bennett L. Gershman.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in each case, and has accused the cases of being politically motivated.
Federal election interference case
The Supreme Court determined that presidents are presumed to be protected by immunity for any official acts, but the court did not clearly apply the ruling to Trump’s alleged criminal conduct, leaving that decision to the trial judge overseeing the case.
Judge Tanya Chutkan — who froze the proceedings for six months during Trump’s Supreme Court appeal — will now need to determine if Trump’s alleged conduct comprised official or private acts. To answer that question, Chutkan will need to consider whether Trump’s conduct fell within the “outer perimeter” of Trump’s presidential duties or if the actions were committed in Trump’s capacity as president, rather than a candidate for office or party leader.
While the justices found that some of the conduct — such as Trump’s interactions with Department of Justice officials — are absolutely official acts, they acknowledged Trump’s interactions with his vice president or state officials could present “difficult questions” for Chutkan.
Adding to the challenge, the justices limited Chutkan’s ability to inquire about Trump’s motives because such an inquiry would be “highly intrusive” and “‘seriously cripple” the president’s ability to conduct their official duties.
“I expect there’ll be hearings about what counts can stand, and what counts can’t stand, and what evidence can be presented and what evidence can’t be presented,” said Jeffrey Cohen, a Boston College associate law professor.
Those hearings could also allow prosecutors to air evidence and testimony ahead of Election Day — though Chutkan is not permitted to set any hearings for another month until the Supreme Court’s decision is formally issued.
The Supreme Court also prohibited prosecutors from using any testimony or private records from Trump or any of his advisers related to official acts as evidence at trial, further complicating the case.
Smith might consider modifying the case against Trump by going back to a grand jury to secure a superseding indictment, according to Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School.
Through a series of hearings and or an updated indictment, Chutkan could carve out a version of the case against Trump that meets the Supreme Court’s new standards, Levitt said.
Overall, experts ABC News spoke with agreed that Monday’s ruling significantly limited the breadth of the case and the kind of evidence that might be permissible at trial — and all but guaranteed that a trial would not take place before the election.
Either side can appeal Chutkan’s final decision about the bounds of the case, and that appeal could take up to a year and go all the way back to the Supreme Court.
“I think that this is a major hurdle for the prosecution,” said Fordham Law Professor Cheryl Bader. “This was a real gut punch.”
Georgia election interference case
The former president’s criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia, could also be reshaped by Monday’s ruling from the Supreme Court, experts said, because both the federal and the state case focus on Trump’s conduct while president.
“I would say that the rule for absolute immunity would apply pretty much equally in both instances, federal and state,” Gershman said.
Earlier this year, Trump’s lawyers sought to dismiss the state case based on the claim of presidential immunity, though the judge overseeing that case has yet to issue a decision, waiting for the Supreme Court’s final ruling.
“The indictment in this case charges President Trump for acts that lie at the heart of his official responsibilities as President,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a January motion. “The indictment is barred by presidential immunity and should be dismissed with prejudice.”
Bader suggested that the Georgia case’s emphasis on conduct related to state officials and private individuals could help prosecutors, since those interactions are less likely to be considered official acts.
The Georgia case is currently delayed as an appeals court considers Trump’s challenge to Judge Scott McAfee’s decision not to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis, though experts suggested Trump could likely use the immunity ruling to extend the delay if or when the case is remanded back to McAfee.
Federal classified documents case
In February, Trump’s lawyers moved to dismiss the former president’s federal case related to the alleged retention of classified documents by arguing that Trump’s conduct was covered by presidential immunity.
Trump’s lawyers argued that the criminal charges “stem directly from official acts by President Trump while in office” because Trump allegedly designated the classified documents as personal records while he was in office.
Legal experts who spoke with ABC News were skeptical of the argument because the case inherently focuses on Trump’s conduct following the presidency, though Judge Aileen Cannon has yet to issue a ruling on the motion.
“There’s a good argument there that there is no official action in holding on to documents after he leaves the office,” Gershman said.
Monday’s ruling might prompt Cannon to reconsider the question of immunity by applying the Supreme Court’s test for official acts — a move that could further delay the proceedings, experts said.
“I could definitely see Judge Cannon using this as an additional vehicle for delay,” Bader added, though she emphasized the case was already unlikely to go to trial before the election.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas also provided support for the defense argument that Smith was illegally appointed as special counsel, which Cannon considered during a two-day hearing in June.
“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Thomas wrote.
New York hush money case
In May, a New York jury convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying records related to a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his chances in the 2016 presidential election.
Ahead of the trial, Trump’s lawyers asked that the judge overseeing the case limit certain evidence based on Trump’s immunity claim. The evidence — a government ethics form disclosing the reimbursement at the center of the case, and Trump’s social media posts from his official Twitter account in 2018 related to an alleged “pressure campaign” against his former lawyer Michael Cohen — was admitted into evidence during the trial after Judge Juan Merchan rejected the immunity argument as “untimely.”
“The Court declines to consider whether the doctrine of presidential immunity precludes the introduction of evidence of purported official presidential acts in a criminal proceeding,” Merchan wrote in an April decision.
In a letter to Merchan on Monday — described by sources to ABC News — Trump’s lawyers argued that the verdict should be thrown out because the jury saw evidence that should have been protected by Trump’s immunity for official acts.
Trump’s lawyers could ask Merchan or an appeals court to reconsider if the conviction would stand without the social media posts and ethics form, if the evidence was deemed protected as an official act, according to Gershman.
“There’s just a mountain of other evidence that would support the jury’s verdict, so I don’t see it really having any appreciable impact, if any impact, on the New York case,” Gershman said.
A federal judge who heard arguments related to Trump’s effort to remove the case to federal court already dismissed the argument that any of Trump’s conduct in the case was protected “under the color of the official acts of a President.”
“The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal item of the President — a cover-up of an embarrassing event,” Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote in a July 2023 decision denying Trump’s effort to remove the case to federal court. “Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties.”
(NEW YORK) — A new study shows that FDA-approved oral migraine drug atogepant is effective for relieving difficult-to-treat “medication overuse headaches” that are the result of using too much of other pain relieving medications. However, patients often have to jump through hoops to get it covered by their insurance company.
Migraines affect nearly one in eight adults in the U.S. Migraines are also the leading cause of disability in adults under 50 years of age in the United States. This high number underscores the need for better treatments for people with migraines.
Atogepant, marketed under the brand Qulipta by the company AbbVie, is part of a new class of migraine medications known as CGRP inhibitors, so named because they block a protein called calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), which has been found to be a cause of migraines.
Qulipta is one of only two FDA-approved CGRP inhibitors taken as a pill for the prevention of migraine headaches, the other being rimegepant, marketed as Nurtec by Pfizer. All other drugs in this class used for migraine prevention are injectables.
The American Headache Society’s (AHS) recently released a position statement that says that CGRP inhibitors should be the first treatment a doctor prescribes for migraines. But insurance companies often require patients to go through a process known as “step therapy” where they have to try less expensive interventions before they can get access to Qulipta or one of the other CGRP inhibitors.
“CGRP-targeting therapies, unlike most other migraine treatments that were ‘borrowed’ from other indications like antidepressants, blood pressure medications or seizure medications, were developed specifically to treat migraines based upon a solid foundation of evidence,” according to Dr. Andrew Charles, professor of Neurology at UCLA and lead author of the American Headache Society’s position statement.
Step therapy requires patients to try a series of cheaper drugs first, even if they are less efficient and cause more side effects, before they are approved to receive one of the newer treatments. The goal of step therapy is to control costs, but it can also end up delaying proper treatment and patients often find it frustrating and time-consuming because they must needlessly go through several medications before they can get ones that work.
“Step therapy, or fail first requirement, is a no-win situation for people like me living with migraines. For me, using medications that were known to be less effective delayed necessary treatment, and led to worsening disability and chronification of my migraine disease,” says Nancy Harris Bonk, a migraine patient and advocate.
Congress has proposed a bill potentially banning step therapy when it is unsafe, which its often the case for migraine patients.
“It is no surprise that medication costs are a barrier for patients to access these treatments despite this position paper, and a major goal for all of us is to reduce drug costs for patients and the system,” Dr. Matthew Robbins, associate professor of neurology at Weill Cornell and president-elect of the AHS, told ABC News. “However, our primary goal is always to get the right treatments to the right patients, so we are hopeful that the position statement will move along insurance companies, pharmacy benefit managers, and other systems of care to improve access in addition to cost reductions for these medications.”
For example, AbbVie offers a program to help with the expense of the Qulipta by providing a savings card and patient assistance program that can reduce out-of-pocket costs for eligible patients, including those on Medicare and Medicaid.
Pfizer, the makers of Nurtec, offer a similar savings and assistance program but only for those on private insurance plans. People on Medicare and other government-funded insurance may wind up paying high out-of-pocket costs.
“Many patients and healthcare providers are not aware of the patient assistance program offered by Abbvie or other companies. Additionally, pharmacies often do not accept co-pay cards or coupons offered by the manufacturer, which leaves many patients without access to necessary medications,” said Dr. Hida Nierenburg, a board-certified neurologist and headache specialist at Nuvance Health.
“Although they are expensive, some insurers are now acknowledging that the overwhelming evidence supporting their efficacy, tolerability, and safety warrants consideration as a first line treatment for the prevention of migraine” says, Dr. Charles.
(NEW YORK) — A grand jury in Palm Beach County on July 19, 2006, heard from two alleged underage victims of Jeffrey Epstein, two police officers and an investigator with the state’s attorney’s office in a proceeding that lasted less than four hours, according to newly unsealed transcripts released by a judge in Florida.
During the testimony of the two alleged victims, each was confronted with questions about whether they understood that they had engaged in prostitution and could be charged with a crime, according to the newly released transcripts.
“It was just atrocious the way they handled it,” said Spencer Kuvin, an attorney who represented one of the alleged underage victims who testified. “They basically tanked their own case.”
The previously secret testimony was made public on Monday in response to a motion from the Palm Beach Post, joined by numerous other news agencies. Earlier this year, the Florida legislature passed a new law tailored to ensure that the Epstein documents were made public because of the intense public interest in understanding how the grand jury returned an indictment of Epstein on just a single charge of solicitation of prostitution. The transcript of the grand jury proceedings, however, does not indicate what charging options were presented to grand jurors before they reached their decision.
The grand jury was convened in 2006 by then State’s Attorney Barry Krischer, who had for months resisted efforts by the Palm Beach Police Department to charge Epstein with multiple felonies for his alleged sexual exploitation of underage girls.
The opening witness before the grand jury was Palm Beach Police Detective Joseph Recarey, who led the investigation of Epstein and interviewed more than a dozen alleged underage victims. Recarey recounted the onset of the investigation when the stepmother of a 14-year-old girl reported that her daughter had received $300 to massage an older man on Palm Beach Island.
Prosecutors then called that teen girl, who had since turned 15. She testified that she went once to Epstein’s mansion the previous year. She said she was asked by Epstein’s assistant to strip down to her underwear and to wait for Epstein to enter the room. She said she massaged Epstein and then, at his request, agreed to allow him to use a vibrator on her for an extra $100. She admitted that she lied and told Epstein that she was 18. Her parents found out about her trip to Epstein’s, she said, because she had gotten into an altercation at school and the money was found in her purse.
During her testimony, prosecutors asked the girl about her drug and alcohol use, body piercings and postings on her MySpace page in which she boasted of shoplifting and lied about her age and her income, claiming to make $250,000.
“Yeah, it’s a joke,” she testified. “Like, all my friends do that, cause it’s kind of funny and random and stupid.”
A juror then asked the witness if she had “any idea deep down inside of you that…what you’re doing is wrong?”
“Yeah, I did,” she answered.
“And you’re well aware that what you’re doing to your own reputation,” the juror asked.
“Yes, I do,” she recalled.
A prosecutor, Lanna Belohlavek, then asked the 15-year-old witness: “You aware that you committed a crime?”
“Now I am. I didn’t know it was a crime when I was doing it,” she replied. “Now, I guess it’s prostitution or something like that.”
Reading those exchanges on Monday, Kuvin — who represented the witness during the Epstein investigation — said he was appalled but not surprised.
“It just reaffirmed what we always knew was happening is that the state attorney was afraid to prosecute him, and that they tanked their own case by attacking their own witnesses during the grand jury proceeding,” he said. “It was almost like the grand jury proceeding was an attempt to prosecute the teenagers and ignore Epstein.”
In subsequent testimony, Detective Recarey, who died in 2018, recounted the now familiar deviant scheme in which Epstein enlisted his assistants and his alleged victims to recruit other underage girls to his homes for illicit massages. Recarey told the grand jury that two alleged victims had intercourse with Epstein without their consent while under the age of 18.
One alleged victim, Recarey testified, had gone to Epstein’s mansion over 100 times, and had received $200 each time, and gifts, including a rented car for her use. He testified that on one occasion, Epstein had intercourse with her without her consent.
“She screamed no,” Recarey said when asked by a grand juror if the victim had asked Epstein to stop.
Epstein stopped, apologized and paid her $1000, Recarey testified.
Belohlavek then questioned Recarey about the money the alleged victim made from all her visits to Epstein’s home.
“That day she took a thousand dollars. Let’s say it’s only $200 for a hundred times; she’s – we’re talking a lot of money she got, at a minimum, plus a car,” the prosecutor said. “Did you ask her what she did with all that money?”
“I did ask her and she didn’t want to tell me,” Recarey replied. “She said that it was too personal.”
“After you – she’s just described all these sex acts to you? Okay,” Belohlavek replied.
The only other alleged victim to testify before the grand jury said she went to Epstein’s mansion about 10 times, starting when she was 16.
“He was well aware of my age from the very beginning,” she said.
The sexual activity escalated gradually, she testified, until her last encounter when Epstein initiated intercourse. It was the day before her 18th birthday, she said. She testified that she did not want to have intercourse with him but did not ask him to stop.
The young girl said she was reluctant to testify and didn’t really know if she wanted to see Epstein prosecuted.
“You understand that you in effect were committing prostitution yourself,” a prosecutor asked.
“Yes,” the witness replied.
The final witness of the day was an investigator with the state’s attorney’s office who was guided through testimony covering the backgrounds of the alleged teen victims, including shoplifting, arrests, drinking and drug use. The investigator was also questioned about the MySpace pages of the alleged 14-year-old victim. Much of that information had been provided to the prosecutor by Epstein’s defense attorneys in an attempt to dissuade the office from bringing charges.
“And does her website also include pictures of her in skimpy attire, drinking alcohol and sexually provocative photos?” the witness was asked.
“Yes, ma’am,” he replied.
Following this grand jury’s indictment on one charge of solicitation of prostitution — with no mention of minor victims — Epstein was arrested, booked and released on bond. The outcome of the grand jury incensed then Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter, who publicly apologized to the victims and turned over the case to the FBI. Two years later, federal prosecutors crafted a deal with Epstein that allowed him to escape federal prosecution in exchange for his guilty plea to the original grand jury indictment plus one additional charge of soliciting a minor into prostitution. He served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in a private wing of the Palm Beach County stockade. Epstein was also allowed liberal work release, which permitted him to spend up to 16 hours a day at his office in West Palm Beach.
Following Epstein’s 2019 arrest in New York, Krischer pushed back on claims that his handling of the case more than a decade earlier had forced federal prosecutors to enter into that infamously lenient deal with Epstein.
“No matter how my office resolved the state charges, the U.S. Attorney’s Office always had the ability to file its own federal charges,” Krischer said in a statement at the time.
U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during an event in Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday, April 8, 2024. (Daniel Steinle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Handing the Biden administration an unexpected win amidst a legal back-and-forth, a court over the weekend agreed to let the Education Department continue implementing the final phases of a student loan repayment plan that will lower people’s monthly bills.
This comes after the department had already begun the process to put three million borrowers into a payment pause, a move officials said was necessary to comply with the court’s initial ruling last week to halt the payment cuts. But because of the latest ruling, borrowers enrolled in the SAVE Plan will now go forward with payments at their new rates beginning in July and August, officials said.
The SAVE Plan, dubbed the most affordable plan for borrowers and President Joe Biden’s hallmark surviving student debt reform effort, is the target of two Republican-led lawsuits that argue the Biden administration has gone beyond its authority in aspects of the plan. Courts in Kansas and Missouri ruled in the GOP states’ favor last week, deciding the Biden administration could not go forward with further implementation of the SAVE Plan, an income-driven repayment plan that was rolled out last August and used by eight million people.
In particular, the rulings halted the Department of Education from cutting borrowers’ payments beginning July 1, when they were set to decrease from 10% of a borrower’s discretionary income down to 5% for those with undergraduate loans, and from canceling any more loans for people who’d taken out small initial loan balances but had been paying them down for over a decade. So far, 414,000 people have qualified for the debt relief.
After the Department of Justice filed an emergency motion on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed the lower court’s ruling, allowing the Biden administration to proceed with the payment cut. Debt relief remains on pause.
“Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sided with student loan borrowers across the country who stand to benefit from the SAVE Plan – the most affordable repayment plan in history,” Education Department Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement on Monday.
In addition to offering the lowest monthly payment for most borrowers, the plan also shields borrowers from unpaid interest accrual, one of the largest additional fees that borrowers face on their loans. Unpaid interest is forgiven so long as qualified borrowers make their monthly payments on the loan — even if their required payment is $0. About 4.5 million borrowers enrolled in the SAVE Plan qualify for $0 monthly payments because they make minimum wage or less.
“Borrowers will hear directly from their loan servicers and the Department as we implement the new, lower monthly payments for borrowers enrolled in SAVE,” Cardona said.
The department offered some guidance for borrowers trying to navigate the rulings.
Due to the rush to adhere to evolving court decrees, some borrowers might have already been placed on a payment pause when the court reversed the ruling. Those borrowers — who should see in their student loan servicer portals that they are placed in forbearance — will remain on a payment pause through July and be expected to make their first payment at the lower rate in August, a Department of Education spokesperson said Monday.
If a borrower has already received a bill from their loan servicer with a lower, correct rate, they should expect to pay it in July, the spokesperson said.
Overall, following the changes has been challenging, said Michael Lopez, a 33-year-old social worker and high school wrestling coach who lives in Anaheim, California. Lopez took on roughly $200,000 to get an undergraduate and then a master’s degree in social work, putting him on the high end of the spectrum of student debt carried by Americans.
“I’ve been keeping up as best I can, given all of the sudden shifts,” he said.
Lopez said he was relieved to see that the SAVE Plan could go forward and his monthly payments would fall but that the pattern of court decisions halting student loan policies has made him permanently wary.
“I’m happy about it and at the same time still anxious over the whole thing. There have been so many changes and so much uncertainty that it’s hard to really feel great about any good news since it could easily change again,” Lopez said.
Lopez and many other borrowers were disappointed when Biden couldn’t follow through on his pledge to cancel $10,000 to $20,000 in debt last year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his sweeping debt relief policy for 43 million Americans.
Biden’s continued efforts to cancel debt in a more piecemeal fashion have now reached nearly 4.75 million borrowers, which Biden continues to highlight on the campaign trail.
Three percent of the debt relief issued by the Biden administration has been through the SAVE Plan, while the vast majority has been through fixes to programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness and income-driven repayment plans, which were plagued by administrative failures. The administration has also gone after colleges that have defrauded students, distributing widespread debt relief to the victims.
The administration is continuing to work on a Plan B to Biden’s initial, widespread debt relief proposal, taking a narrower approach that could cancel debt for about 30 million people in total, including the people who’ve already had debts canceled.
The administration hopes this more bureaucratic approach will not be overturned by the court yet again — though it is almost certain to face lawsuits once it reaches its final stages this summer.
(NEW YORK) — After Hurricane Beryl strengthened to a Category 5 while over the ocean, a Hurricane warning is now in effect for Jamaica, according to the National Hurricane Center.
Hurricane Beryl is expected to produce rainfall totals of 4 to 8 inches across portions of Jamaica on Wednesday, with isolated amounts of up to 12 inches possible. This could trigger flash flooding in vulnerable areas.
The outer bands of Beryl could impact southern portions of the Dominican Republic and Haiti beginning late Tuesday into Wednesday, potentially causing 2 to 6 inches of rain in these areas.
Sea surface temperatures in the eastern Caribbean Sea, where Beryl is currently located, are running warmer than average for this time of the year, more in line with where they would be at the peak of the Atlantic Hurricane Season rather than early July. This is providing ample fuel for Beryl’s extreme intensification.
The latest forecast calls for little change in strength overnight, with a gradual weakening trend commencing on Tuesday as the storm sweeps west-northwestward across the Caribbean Sea.
Beryl will continue to track across the Caribbean Sea throughout the week, closing in on Jamaica on Wednesday, likely weakening to a Category 2 storm by then. The center and worst impacts will likely pass south of the island; however, the latest forecast now has the center of the storm passing a little closer to Jamaica, so more intense rain, wind and storm surge impacts will be possible on the current track.
A weakening trend will continue through the rest of the week as Beryl sweeps across the Caribbean Sea and encounters less favorable atmospheric conditions.
Beryl will then take aim at Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula by the end of the week. The current forecast calls for a second landfall sometime on Friday along the eastern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Beyond that, the system will likely move into the southwestern Gulf of Mexico/Bay of Campeche, continuing to weaken, while taking aim at parts of eastern Mexico next weekend as a tropical storm.
Unfortunately, the same general area of eastern Mexico will likely now see impacts from all three of the first named storms of the 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season. After being hit by Alberto and just recently by Tropical Storm Chris over the past 24 hours, Beryl will likely bring at least some impacts to the same region by later in the upcoming weekend.
(NEW YORK) — Hurricane Beryl has been upgraded to a Category 5 and is being described as “potentially catastrophic,” the National Hurricane Center announced Monday night.
Maximum sustained winds have increased to 160 mph, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Hurricane Hunters.
Beryl is currently moving across the eastern Caribbean Sea after slamming into Carriacou Island in Grenada with maximum sustained winds of 150 mph as a Category 4, leaving at least one person dead, according to officials Monday.
Bequia is the largest island in the Grenadines, approximately nine miles from the nation’s capital, Kingstown, on the main island, Saint Vincent.
Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves says there may be more deaths, but right now, one death has been officially confirmed.
Before making landfall, the storm was gaining strength as it headed toward the Windward Islands, which also include Grenada, St. Vincent, Grenadines and Petite Martinique.
The hurricane has caused extensive damage to schools, homes and buildings, farmlands and properties in the region, officials said Monday.
Communication is down in some parts of the country, so authorities still don’t know the full extent of the damage.
Union Island in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines suffered severe damage, with 90% of houses on the island being impacted and the Union Island airport roof being blown away in the storm.
Gonzalves is set to visit the Grenadine Islands on Tuesday.
Over the weekend, Beryl went from a tropical depression to a major Category 4 hurricane in just 48 hours, becoming the earliest Category 4 on record for the Atlantic Basin, breaking the record Hurricane Dennis held from July 7, 2005. Beryl is the first Category 4 ever recorded in the month of June.
The hurricane was downgraded Sunday evening to a Category 3, but picked up power and speed over warm ocean water and was upgraded to Category 4 Monday morning.
Ocean temperatures in the area where Beryl is located are 2 to 3 degrees above normal for this time of the year. Such temperatures are usually not seen until September.
Beryl is moving west at 20 mph. Some fluctuations of strength are expected but Beryl is forecast to remain at major status through the day as it passes the Windward Islands. A life-threatening storm surge is expected to raise water levels by as much as 6 to 9 feet above normal tide levels in areas of onshore winds near where the eye makes landfall in the hurricane warning area. Near the coast, the surge will be accompanied by large and destructive waves.
Beryl is expected to produce rainfall totals of 3 to 6 inches across Barbados and the Windward Islands through Monday afternoon. The Grenadines and Grenada could see up to 10 inches of rain and may experience flash flooding in vulnerable areas.
Beryl will continue to track toward Jamaica, reaching near the island on Wednesday. Even if Beryl doesn’t make a direct landfall in Jamaica it will be close enough to cause issues.
After that, Beryl will move over the Yucatan Peninsula and then likely into eastern Mexico after another stint in the Gulf.
(UTICA, N.Y.) — As the family of a 13-year-old boy who was killed by police in Utica, New York, demanded justice, the city’s police chief alleged Monday that the teenager had a realistic-looking replica gun still in his hand when he was shot.
The boy, identified as Nyah Mway, was shot once in the chest by a Utica police officer on Friday night after he and a friend were stopped on a street by officers investigating a robbery pattern, officials said.
“This is very heartbreaking for the family because they lost a child,” Mway’s uncle, Lay Htoo, told ABC News, adding that his nephew recently graduated from the eighth grade.
Htoo said the shooting has devastated his family, who moved to Utica eight years ago after escaping civil unrest in Myanmar and spending time in a refugee camp in Thailand.
He said the family came to America to avoid violence only now to be confronted by it.
Htoo questioned why police shot his nephew after he had been thrown to the ground by an officer and, based on video recorded by a bystander and posted on social media, punched.
“They don’t really have to take out their guns and shoot him,” said Htoo, adding that he thinks police could have used a stun gun on his nephew.
But Utica Police Chief Mark Williams said investigators reviewed the police body camera video frame by frame and discovered the officers had reason to fear for their safety.
“We were able to break down those images you saw of a person with a gun. In one of those images that we found is when he [Mway] was on the ground he still had the gun in his hand,” Williams said in an interview with ABC affiliate station WSYR in Syracuse.
Williams added, “Despite our efforts to be transparent, people weren’t ready for the facts, and I can appreciate that. All they see is a dead 13-year-old and nobody feels good about it.”
The three officers were identified by the department as Patrick Husnay, a six-year-veteran of the force; Bryce Patterson, a four-year veteran of the department; and Andrew Citriniti, who joined the force two-and-a-half years ago after serving as a Oneida County Sheriff’s deputy.
Husnay is the officer who shot and killed Mway, according to police officials.
Williams said the incident marked his department’s first fatal officer-involved shooting since September 2022.
The chief said he is now concerned for the safety of the officers involved in the fatal incident, particularly Husnay.
“Within less than 12 hours, people were posting images of his photo, his home address,” said Williams, adding that the police department is providing protection for the officers.
The shooting unfolded just after 10 p.m. ET on Friday in a west Utica residential neighborhood.
At the time of the incident, Husnay, Pattetson and Citriniti — members of the police department’s Crime Prevention Unit — were assisting in the investigation of at least two recent robberies involving suspects described as Asian males who brandished a black in color firearm at victims, according to a police statement.
Williams said police have not confirmed if Mway and his friend were involved in the robberies.
“Based on the listed identifying factors from the robbery, officers approached Nyah Mway and the other juvenile as they matched the robbery suspects’ descriptions and were in the immediate vicinity of the previous robbery at nearly the same time of day,” according to the police statement.
Police justified the stop, saying that one of the boys was walking in the roadway where sidewalks are provided, a violation of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law.
According to publicly released police body camera footage from all three officers involved in the incident, Patterson approached Mway on the sidewalk and asked him to take his hands out of his pockets. The footage showed Mway holding up his hands and then putting them back in his pockets, prompting Patterson to repeat his order.
“Can I pat you down [to] make sure you have no weapons on you?” Patterson asked Mway, the body camera video shows.
But before Patterson could search Mway, the teen bolted to his left and began running down the street with Patterson and the other two officers chasing him, according to the video.
The footage seemed to show Mway turn around and allegedly point a gun at Patterson and the other officers. The officers can be heard on the video yelling that Mway had a gun and repeatedly ordered him to “drop it!”
Mway appeared to trip and fall to the ground and as he tried to get back up, Patterson grabbed him and tackled him, according to body camera footage.
“He pulled it on me. He turned around just like this,” Patterson later told a supervisor, demonstrating how Mway allegedly aimed a gun at him, according to his body-worn camera footage.
As Patterson was on top of Mway wrestling with him, Husnay drew his weapon and fired, hitting the teenager in the chest, according to the video and the police statement.
As officers began to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Mway, Husnay is seen in the body-camera footage recovering a gun he initially identified as a black Glock 22 handgun lying in the grass next to where Mway fell.
Police later said the gun was a replica Glock 17 pellet gun. Williams said Monday that the gun looked like the real handgun and even had the word Glock printed on it.
During an interview at the scene with a supervisor, Husnay said he was the only officer to fire his weapon. He said he discharged “one round straight towards the ground,” according to his body camera video which stayed on as he was being questioned.
“Is it possible the suspect fired rounds at you?” the police supervisor asked Husnay, according to the video.
Husnay responded, “I don’t know.”
Mway was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
Williams said the three officers involved in the incident are on paid administrative leave, which is routine for officer-involved shooting investigations.
New York State Attorney General Letitia James said her agency’s Office of Special Investigation is conducting an independent investigation of the shooting.
The shooting immediately drew an angry response from the community. A large crowd attending a vigil for Mway on Saturday, and chanted “No justice, no peace.”
Williams conceded that the shooting has damaged the trust his police department has established over the years with the Karen ethnic minority community in the Utica area, estimated to be about 8,000 strong. He said he hopes to restore that trust by being as transparent about the incident as possible.
“Justice doesn’t happen as swiftly as we all would like it,” Williams said Monday, adding that the probe by the state Attorney General’s Office could take up to a year. “There has to be an investigation. We have to be partial to all the information, not just one video that was put out there.”
(NEW YORK) — Hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling that President Donald Trump has some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken to overturn results of the 2020 election, Trump on Monday sought to have his conviction thrown out in his New York criminal hush money case, according to sources.
Trump’s lawyers said the hush money verdict should be tossed because the jury saw evidence during trial that they believe should have been protected by presidential immunity, according to a letter to Judge Juan Merchan that was described by sources to ABC News.
The defense sought additional time to make their argument — a move that could delay Trump’s sentencing, which is currently scheduled for July 11.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office and a representative from Trump’s legal team declined to comment to ABC News.
A jury in May took less than ten hours to convict Trump of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in an effort to boost his chances in the 2016 presidential election.
Trump’s then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, wired Daniels $130,000 and Trump reimbursed him in monthly installments disguised as routine legal expenses, prosecutors said.
Trump’s defense team previously invoked a presidential immunity argument in an unsuccessful effort to limit evidence and delay the trial.
In March, defense lawyers sought to exclude a government ethics form that disclosed Trump’s reimbursement to Cohen, as well as a series of tweets from 2018 that prosecutors alleged were part of a “pressure campaign” against Cohen.
“Under these appropriate standards, President Trump’s social media posts and public statements — while acting as President and viewed in context — fell within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duty, to which communicating with the public on matters of public concern was central,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in the March motion that the judge rejected ahead of the trial.
