?

In a week filled with legal battles for former President Donald Trump, key questions have emerged about the limits of presidential power and the potential consequences of his actions. From a grand jury indictment in Washington to a criminal contempt hearing in New York, Trump finds himself entangled in a web of legal proceedings that have left judges grappling with a defendant who is also a major political figure.

During a Supreme Court argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson posed a poignant question to Trump's lawyer: "If there's no threat of criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from just doing whatever he wants?" This question not only applies to Trump's criminal case in Washington, where he is accused of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, but also to the New York case where prosecutors are urging a judge to hold him in criminal contempt for allegedly attacking potential trial witnesses.

Despite a court-imposed gag order prohibiting him from commenting on trial witnesses, Trump continues to post about them online and express his opinions in the hallways of the courthouse. The prosecution argues that Trump seems to be "angling" for incarceration, possibly seeking martyrdom status among his political base.

However, the judges presiding over Trump's cases have made it clear that, for the purposes of their proceedings, Trump should be treated like any other defendant. But the reality is that he is not. His status as the presumptive GOP nominee for president brings unprecedented circumstances to the legal system, leaving judges with the weight of making difficult decisions.

Judge Juan Merchan in New York and Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., have acknowledged the extraordinary nature of Trump's cases but have maintained that he should be treated equally. Nevertheless, if Trump prevails in his immunity argument in the Supreme Court, protecting him from prosecution, it would grant him rare status that challenges the principle that "no man is above the law."

Meanwhile, in the ongoing trial against Trump, the prosecution presented its second witness after former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker concluded his testimony. Pecker's remarks regarding a joint scheme to benefit Trump's 2016 campaign faced attempts by defense attorneys to cast doubt on their credibility. Other witnesses, including Rhona Graff, Trump's long-time assistant, testified under subpoena, acknowledging that they were responsible for maintaining Trump's contact list and calendar. This contact list included individuals such as former Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film star Stormy Daniels, both of whom alleged having sexual relations with Trump in 2006.

As the trial resumes next week, the final witness, Gary Farro, a bank executive who assisted Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen in setting up a shell company to make payments to Daniels, will continue providing testimony to authenticate transaction-related documents.

In another political battle, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell anticipates an uphill fight against isolationism within his own party. McConnell, who is stepping down at the end of the year, sees this battle as his next major challenge, given that the Republican nominee for president has embraced an "America First" foreign policy. McConnell faces the task of countering the growing number of GOP lawmakers who oppose aid to Ukraine, with more House Republicans voting against it than for it. McConnell plans to dedicate his post-leadership time to fighting against isolationism within the Republican Party.

The legal proceedings involving Donald Trump and the internal battles within the GOP highlight the extraordinary circumstances and challenges facing both the judiciary and political system. The outcomes of these proceedings will have far-reaching implications and test the fundamental principles of democracy and equality before the law.