Trump on Trial Podcast Por Inception Point Ai arte de portada

Trump on Trial

Trump on Trial

De: Inception Point Ai
Escúchala gratis



Trump on Trial is a podcast that covers the legal issues facing former President Donald Trump. Each week, we break down the latest news and developments in his ongoing trials and investigations, and we talk to experts to get their insights and analysis.We're committed to providing our listeners with accurate and up-to-date information, and we're not afraid to ask tough questions. We'll be taking a close look at all of the legal cases against Trump, including the Georgia investigation into his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the New York lawsuit alleging financial fraud, and the various criminal investigations into his businesses and associates.We'll also be discussing the implications of Trump's legal troubles for his political future and for the future of the country. We're living in a time of unprecedented political polarization, and Trump's trials are sure to be a major news story for months to come.Trump on Trial is the essential podcast for anyone who wants to stay informed about the legal challenges facing Donald Trump. Subscribe today and never miss an episode!Copyright 2025 Inception Point Ai Ciencia Ficción Ciencia Política Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Emergency Tariffs in 6-3 Ruling: What It Means for Presidential Power and Trade

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Emergency Tariffs in 6-3 Ruling: What It Means for Presidential Power and Trade
    Feb 22 2026
    I never thought I'd be standing in the shadow of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on a crisp February morning in 2026, feeling the weight of a decision that just reshaped presidential power. But here we are, listeners, just two days ago on Friday, February 20, the nine justices handed down a bombshell in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed through executive orders, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president authority to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies like drug trafficking from Canada or massive trade deficits.

    Picture this: Trump had declared these threats "unusual and extraordinary," hitting Canadian goods with a 25% duty and broader tariffs on everything from electronics to steel, all under IEEPA's vague language about regulating importation. But Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said no way. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, arguing Congress never clearly delegated such huge economic power to the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Democratic appointees, signed on to parts rejecting the tariffs outright, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, insisting IEEPA's text, history, and precedents backed Trump all the way, calling it a "straightforward case" for presidential authority in foreign affairs.

    The ruling came fast—arguments were back in November 2025 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit—and it vacated lower court judgments, remanding one with instructions to dismiss. Importers like Learning Resources, Inc., who challenged the tariffs on toys and educational materials, celebrated outside the marble steps, while businesses nationwide breathed easier, spared from billions in extra costs.

    That same evening, President Trump took the stage in the White House Rose Garden, crowd roaring behind him, and unloaded. According to CNBC's live coverage, he called the decision "deeply disappointing," slamming certain justices as "ashamed," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution," hinting they were swayed by "foreign interests and a small political movement." He praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius" dissent and his own appointee Justice Alito, but vowed to fight on. Trump announced he'd sign an executive order that day for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective in days, plus Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by countries like China. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years," he shrugged, but insisted America wouldn't lose.

    Across the country, reactions poured in. California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded immediate refund checks for Americans hit by the now-invalid tariffs, calling them "illegal" in a Sacramento presser. Legal experts at Holland & Knight law firm noted importers could now seek reimbursements, while SCOTUSblog broke it down: Roberts dissected IEEPA's two little words—"regulate... importation"—ruling they don't stretch to outright tariffs, a tool historically for Congress.

    As I wrap up this whirlwind from the past few days, it's clear this Supreme Court showdown isn't just about trade—it's a defining line on executive power, echoing Trump's past battles like Trump v. Vance in 2020, where the Court said no absolute immunity from state subpoenas. With Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch in 2017, Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett in 2020—shifting the bench to a 6-3 conservative tilt, yet ruling against him here, the tensions are electric.

    Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.

    Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs

    For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

    This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
    Más Menos
    4 m
  • Headline: "Supreme Court Dominates 2026 as Trump-Era Lawsuits Reshape America"

    Headline: "Supreme Court Dominates 2026 as Trump-Era Lawsuits Reshape America"
    Feb 18 2026
    I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like episodes of some high-stakes drama, but here we are in mid-February 2026, and the Supreme Court is buzzing with cases tied straight to President Donald Trump's administration. Just last Friday, February 13th, a Republican member of Congress, along with a group of New York voters and state election officials, rushed to the U.S. Supreme Court begging them to let New York stick with its current congressional map for the 2026 elections. See, a state court had blocked it, calling it unfair, but these folks argued it should hold up to avoid chaos at the polls. SCOTUSblog reports the justices ordered the challengers to respond by Thursday afternoon, so eyes are on Washington for a quick ruling that could reshape House seats in the Empire State.

    Shifting gears to the immigration front, the Supreme Court has a blockbuster looming: oral arguments set for April 1st on President Trump's executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship for almost everyone born on U.S. soil. That's the 14th Amendment guarantee under fire, and SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe broke down a stack of amicus briefs backing the administration, from legal scholars to states like Texas and Florida arguing it's time to reinterpret the old rule. Challengers are gearing up too, promising a fight over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means—could redefine American identity overnight.

    Over in Boston's federal court, the Justice Department slapped Harvard University with a lawsuit on Friday, accusing them of stonewalling documents for over ten months. The Trump team wants proof that Harvard's complying with the Supreme Court's 2023 ban on affirmative action in admissions, post-Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The Hill quotes a Harvard spokesperson firing back, calling it retaliatory overreach since the university won't surrender its independence. This one's personal—admissions data could expose if elite schools are dodging the ruling.

    Meanwhile, environmentalists are rallying after the administration axed the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding, the bedrock that justified greenhouse gas regs since greenhouse gases were deemed a public health threat. The New York Times says it's primed for Supreme Court showdowns, leaning on recent wins like curbing agency power in cases such as West Virginia v. EPA. Groups like the Sierra Club are suing, fearing a loss could kneecap future climate rules.

    Tariffs are heating up too—President Trump nominated White House lawyer Kara Westercamp to the U.S. Court of International Trade last Thursday, a spot that might rule on refunds if SCOTUS guts some duties. Politico notes giants like Costco and Toyota are suing Customs and Border Protection to freeze liquidation of their payments, buying time before refunds vanish. Business Insider lists more Fortune 500 players piling in, with deadlines ticking.

    And don't sleep on the judicial shuffle: Ballotpedia's February vacancy count shows President Trump with 39 Article III nominations since January 20th, 27 confirmed—including 21 district judges—outrunning averages. Fresh picks like Anna St. John for Louisiana's Eastern District and Chris Wolfe for Texas Western are Senate-bound.

    It's a whirlwind of lawsuits testing Trump's agenda from New York maps to Harvard halls, climate battlegrounds to border walls. With SCOTUS possibly dropping opinions this Friday at 10 a.m. Eastern, or next week on the 24th and 25th, the justices hold the gavel.

    Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.

    Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs

    For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

    This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
    Más Menos
    4 m
  • Trump's Legal Battles Rage as Judges Defy His Immunity Claims

    Trump's Legal Battles Rage as Judges Defy His Immunity Claims
    Feb 15 2026
    I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into battlegrounds for America's future, but here we are in the thick of it. Just a few days ago, on February 4, 2026, in a federal courtroom in Manhattan, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein stared down lawyers for President Donald Trump with a look that screamed disbelief. According to Associated Press reporter Michael Sisak, who was right there covering the oral arguments, the judge seemed downright incredulous at the defense's push to yank Trump's infamous hush money conviction out of New York state court and into federal territory, where they hope to torch it on presidential immunity grounds.

    Picture this: Trump's team, fresh off a nudge from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals back in November, arguing that even though the 2016 hush money payments to Stormy Daniels were mostly about his personal life during the campaign, some trial evidence touched Oval Office chats with future administration folks like Michael Cohen. They say that makes the whole conviction—where Trump got an unconditional discharge just 11 days before his January 2025 inauguration—immune and erasable. Hellerstein wasn't buying it. Sisak reports the judge hammered them for waiting too long to pivot to federal court, calling it like taking two bites at the apple. He's rejected this move twice before, insisting the case is private scandal, not presidential acts. Trump skipped the hearing himself, but his lawyers left with the judge promising a quick ruling after thanking both sides, including the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, for their fierce arguments.

    And that's not all unfolding in these frantic days. Over at SCOTUSblog, they're tracking how the Supreme Court keeps slapping temporary brakes on Trump's bold plays. On December 23, 2025, the justices, over dissents from Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, refused to pause a Chicago federal judge's order blocking National Guard deployments in Illinois by Judge April Perry. Trump pulled troops from Los Angeles, Chicago, and Portland right after. Then there's the mess with Venezuelan TPS holders—Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco ruled against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's termination of their protected status, but the High Court paused it twice, letting deportations roll as appeals drag on in the 9th Circuit.

    Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker paints an even wilder picture: 298 active cases challenging executive actions on national security, plus suits over the Alien Enemies Act deportations. The Supreme Court's handed down 14 stays favoring the feds, but judges have ruled against them 22 times. Meanwhile, whispers of a massive birthright citizenship fight loom, with U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante blocking Trump's executive order for babies born after February 20, 2025, and the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on April 1.

    It's a judicial whirlwind, listeners—courts in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and D.C. pushing back as Trump tests every limit. Will Hellerstein kill the hush money bid again? Can the Supreme Court reshape immigration overnight? These past few days feel like the front lines of power itself.

    Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.

    Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs

    For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

    This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
    Más Menos
    3 m
Todavía no hay opiniones