January 8, 2025
"If the Supreme Court grants a stay of Mr. Trump’s sentencing, it might effectively scuttle the proceeding for good."
"The window to sentence Mr. Trump is rapidly closing — once he returns to the White House, Mr. Trump cannot face criminal prosecution — and he would be 82 after his second term concludes. It is unclear whether the judge overseeing the case, Justice Juan M. Merchan, would still seek to impose Mr. Trump’s sentence four years later. For now, Mr. Trump’s odds of success at the Supreme Court are unclear. It takes five justices to grant a stay.
While some legal experts doubted the merits of his petition, the justices have come to his rescue before. The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling last year effectively thwarted a federal criminal case against Mr. Trump for his effort to subvert the 2020 election results...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
68 comments:
"The Justices have come to his rescue before" when they really should be writing "The Justices have overruled overzealous prosecutors before"
Stick their lawfare right up their exhaust port.
When a SCOTUS ruling in favor of every president, including Biden, becomes "rescue" of Trump.
While some legal experts doubted the merits of his petition, the justices have come to his rescue before. The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling last year effectively thwarted a federal criminal case against Mr. Trump for his effort to subvert the 2020 election results...."
Indeed, "some" experts you got there, NYT.
"some legal experts."
I have a lot of experience with lawyers, and what it boils down to is this, a lawyer is an person that will take whatever position on the law that the lawyer thinks best supports the side you pay the lawyer to take.
NYT stylebook must specifically have an exception to the "alleged" rule when it comes to Trump.
From what I understand, there is no sentence. The judge made it clear there won't be any jail time handed out, and no probation. Supremes are asked to stay a sentencing which doesn't include a sentence----unusual !!! This whole thing seems perfunctory, and a matter of who gets to have the last word. Parting shots.
The Justices may need to act to prevent a civil war. What happens when Ahab/Merchan sentences Trump to 20 years? Something's gotta give.
This whole thing is about making sure Trump becomes a "convicted" felon. Turn about is fair play, and they're not going to like the new rules.
A sentence for a non crime as brendan carr patiently explained
Grammarians, for one, can't stand run-on sentencing.
The stay should be granted or not based on the merits, not on Trump's status as president-elect. But I'm not surprised the NYT continues to be unable to look past the politics.
"The judge made it clear there won't be any jail time"
Not real until it's official.
If the Democrats were smarter, they would simply surrender. Making the first "felon President" merely motivates President Trump to start tossing a lot more politicians in jail. But hey, one party is stupid and evil, the other is evil and stupid.
What is the USSC being asked to rule on? The merits of the case, the conviction, or the process of sentencing? This whole mess of a so-called trial reminded me of the Alex Jones trial. He's a poisonous toad, but he wasn't allowed even to speak in his own defense, as he was being stripped of his identity. Which is the more poisonous and toxic public threat? This is the sort of thing that should conclude with horse-whipping of the players that put it into motion.
The sole purpose of corrupt Merchan and his fake-trial is to give the entire leftwing machine - Soviet-Democratic Media industrial complex - a talking point.
"Convicted Felon!"
Man, the propaganda in the NYT's is so fucking annoying. They litterly cannot write anything in a truthful, straight manner. All that's left out is "Bourgouise" "Wreckers" and "Running dogs of Capitalism".
"While some legal experts doubted the merits of his petition, the justices have come to his rescue before." = Legal experts are divided on its merits. But the Justices have ruled in favor of presidental immunity before.
"thwarted a federal criminal case against Mr. Trump for his effort to subvert the 2020 election results" = stopped political lawfare against Trump for his efforts to audit the 2020 election results and establish the votes were valid and accurate.
And btw, how does one "Subvert" a vote tally?
"While some legal experts doubted the merits of his petition..." The use of "some" necessarily means that there are at least some other legal experts who do not doubt the merits of his petition. In the interest of fairness, I am sure that the HYT reported on their thoughts.
Right??
I'm sure the usual suyspects will show up to disabuse us of our conclusions once they get their talking points.
It does kind of remind one of the how the German Nazis deprived the accused of their rights, and created the Gestapo, based on nothing more than accusations about who did J6, err, I mean who started the Reichstag Fire.
One word: squalid. If this is what the rule of law looks like, Americans can be forgiven for saying “I want less of this and more of the other thing.”
they couldn't find any experts to cite, ellen gesmer one of the drones on the appeals court
It is over folks... and SCOTUS needs to bury this puppy and let the USA move on.
I’m wondering same. I think it is intentionally conflating aspects of the case. I imagine the USSC is looking at the merits of the prosecution and handling of the overall case rather than when or if sentencing could occur. I expect the USSC to avoid getting involved in a trial that has yet to conclude, but what is odd here is the arbitrary nature of Merchan’s trial scheduling and the defendants rights to a speedy trial. There may be enough merit to the question of whether Merchan was deliberate in changing dates to negatively effect the defendants reputation and limit the defendants ability to appeal in a timely manner.
I think the ultimate outcome is this conviction will be overturned on appeal, and that Merchan opted for the sentencing date to allow for Trump to be considered a convicted felon on entering office and force the President to conduct appeals after assuming office which also creates a conflict of interest. In short, Merchan is asshole.
It's understandable that the Supreme Court prefers to have legal issues come to them in their normal course through the various levels of the justice system, but how much longer are they going to tolerate the ridiculous perversion of our so called "justice system". The unchallenged rise of blatantly political prosecutions and imperial judges contemptuously ignoring established laws and norms must be addressed and aggressively remediated. What the heck is the Supreme Court waiting for? A Bastille Moment?
The SC has to go further than merel halting sentencing. It should direct that Merchan be removed from the bench and disbarred. You cannot stop the abuse of the judicial system that we call “lawfare” unless you severely punish its practioners.
Is the Court in session tomorrow, or is it closed in respect for Jimmy Carter?
The best possible outcome for this would be for the Supreme Court to grant the stay and then 24 hours later publish a majority opinion authored by Kagan to quash this whole thing.
Not going to happen. But then again I did not have Acquiring Canadian Provinces on my BINGO card two weeks ago.
Don’t they just need one supreme to grant a stay?
https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1877007555743879341
Or maybe that only apply to execution orders. Trump becoming a convicted felon is not a matter of life and death. Trump pronouncements about enlarging American territory surely does not comport with that of a man who is in fear of his prospects in the historic realm.
Democrats/Leftists love their labels. That's why they are always throwing out medals and awards so they can claim that means something more than just words on a paper. Obama's award debased the Nobel Peace Prize. Biden has just debased the Medal of Freedom.
It is part and parcel of the "college educated" label when really all they have are magic parchments awarded by corrupted "higher" ed orgs. A BA, Masters or PhD increasingly mean less as the public gets to see the real thought processes of professors on X and Youtube.
Excellent point, MadMan.
I agree that the structure of the way the whole case was handled, was not to try charges, but rather to draw the process out for maximum political impact - as we are seeing, now.
Ride is correct. It's all about legitimizing the Democrats' improper yet ubiquitous use of the word "felon" over the last year. Trump is technically NOT a felon until sentencing under NY law.
Note Nice: the "sentence" could be a fine, since Merchan has said "no time" or probation.
The judge was ordered to review prior rulings etc. in light of the Supreme Court decision last year. To my knowledge he did not do that. Not even a hearing where he could say "It's all good." But maybe I missed it. Last year had a lot of heavy news cycles.
Yes America said that on November 5. All the bullshit came from Team Biden trying to Banana Republic our country and kill Trump.
I’d love to see Trump go to prison, then sprung on the 20th to go to the White House
Did you all hear about the grandmother (one of) who was arrested and prosecuted for merely walking thru open doors at the Capitol building on Jan 6th? She touched nothing and left after a short period in the building. That's it.
She didn't harm anything or anyone. She was arrested and harassed and forced to wear an ankle bracelet and not use the internet.
How Soviet is that?
Well - she is suing - and will probably win. She actually doesn't want a pardon from Trump. She wants to win on the merits. Good for her!
Courage against the corrupt Soviet Left.
read Turley for his legal opinion. Much to be learned.
Like the waitress in Canada who gave $15 to the Canadian Truckers to support their protests against mandatory vaccinations. They shut down her bank accounts. Democrats claim to stand for working people, but we all know that the truth is that they really hate working people. If ever there was a case of the "workers of the world uniting," over a workplace issue, BTW, mandatory vaccinations for truckers, the Canadian Truckers protests was one.
If USSC can scuttle > let contest begin with US Navy!!
One president at a time...its always been that NO PRECEDENT for amnesty for president elect. n the half-hour hearing over Trump's request for a delay on Tuesday afternoon in Manhattan, Gesmer pressed Trump lawyer Todd Blanche on his argument that a sitting president's immunity from prosecution extends to the transition period between winning the election and inauguration.
"Do you have any support for the notion that presidential immunity extends to a president elect?" Gesmer asked.
Blanche replied, "There has never been a case like this before, so no." no presidential immunity for president elect..very simple request denied, virtual sentencing takes about an hour no imposition on transition,Same argument over and over,, REJECTED.
Just the NYT poisoning the well for when the case is inevitably overturned.
Federal courts are open 24/7/365.
NBC, "Trump's lawyers argue that some evidence at trial focused on official actions he took while in the White House. They also take the unprecedented step of saying that a president-elect should have the same protection from criminal prosecution that a sitting president has.:
Exactly.
Unprecedented, perhaps, but not unreasonable - what better way to attack an elected-but-not-yet-seated President-to-be than through indicting him or her, imposing a gag order or the like, requiring them not to leave the state, etc.
The judge should just dismiss the charges in the interests of justice and be done with it. Instead, he's determined to give the Democrat some talking points. He also knows the appeal wouldn't be resolved for 4+ years until Trump is out of the White House. He knows he's going to lose on appeal. He totally blew the trial by letting in quite a bit of inadmissible evidence and giving the jury faulty jury instructions. On top of that, the theory of the case was bogus and should been barred by the statute of limitations for misdemeanors. The entire case is that Trump wrote "legal expenses" on the subject line of checks to his lawyer. What a farce!
The Times is still selling the idea that Trump was trying to steal the election. Fuck that. I’m glad you read it, professor, so I don’t have to.
There is a question whether Smith was legitimately and lawfully appointed a Special Counsel with one Federal Judge tossing his case and saying his appointment was bogus. Then there's the aforementioned issue of this specific temporary judge in NYC ignoring the prior ruling Trump secured.
Those are both questions that the USSC could and should answer.
Yes exactly. The Supremes already ordered Merchan to sort through which acts of Trump's were official which not and exclude any improperly obtained evidence. Anyone here recall that hearing taking place? I don't.
I suspect the Court is acting not to rescue Trump, who won the election is about to become president in any event, but to rescue the American judiciary from openly becoming a combatant in the partisan political wars.
Fun fact: History was made this week on Monday. This is the first certification of a Republican president's election since 1972 that was NOT contested by at least one Democrat. Every other one was contested by Democrats. Every one.
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The questions presented are:
I. Whether President Trump is entitled to an automatic stay of criminal
proceedings against him in state court while his claims of Presidential
immunity from criminal prosecution are addressed on interlocutory appeal to New York’s appellate courts and, if necessary, this Court.
II. Whether the trial court’s admission and use of evidence of President
Trump’s official acts in a state-court jury trial on criminal charges violated
the doctrine of Presidential immunity recognized in Trump v. United
States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024).
III. Whether a sitting President’s complete immunity from criminal prosecution during his term in office extends to the President-Elect of the United States during the brief but crucial period between his election, his certification as the President-elect, which has now occurred, and his inauguration, as he conducts Presidential transition activities that are integral and preparatory to his imminent assumption of the Executive power of the United States.
Right on cue.
The Constitution means exactly and only what five Justices declare it means.
"The entire case is that Trump wrote "legal expenses" on the subject line of checks to his lawyer. What a farce!"
He didn't even do that. An accountant chose it from a drop down menu in the accounting software.
That's what I would have thought. I thought Trump wanted the opportunity to have a Jail photo-op, and look like the ultimate Martyr, but Judge deprived Trump of even that much. If there's no possibility of Jail ---it takes all the fun and suspense out of it.
As a retired lawyer, I agree -- with this codicil : No lawyer HAS to take on a representation he/she disagrees with.
The ultimate jury - the American Electorate - passed judgment on all of the lawfare and said "Stop, now."
The Democrats are just looking g for a way to climb down while not losing face.
Except when Biden forgives student loans. But aside from that...
The thing about "convicted felon" presidents is that the "norms" maybe don't seem quite that important anymore.
Be careful what you wish for, libs.
"The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling last year effectively thwarted a federal criminal case against Mr. Trump for his effort to subvert the 2020 election results."
Don't journalists normally insert "alleged" before a yet-to-be-proven accusation? Or "who is accused of..."? I can't imagine why there were no such qualifiers here.
You've been trying to rewrite the constitution to support the New Soviet Democraticals efforts during your entire tenure at Althouse blog. And its only when you don't think you'll get your way that suddenly you become upset.
Cry more Harry Sisson-dude. Cry more.
At this point, Merchan wants to impose sentence solely to piss Trump off, and Trump is resisting being sentenced solely to piss Merchant off.
And b/c he doesn't want to become a convicted felon - especially not for that farce of a charge and trial
The first two claims appear plausible. So, I expect one of them to succeed, so that the Supreme Court to grant the motion on one or both in order to duck the third. Merchan did not, in fact, have a hearing on Immunity, but rather just said that he didn’t see it. Not even on the record, if I remember correctly. So, the easy solution is to just tell him to conduct the friggen hearing, put it in writing why he doesn’t believe that their Immunity decision isn’t applicable, and then go back to sentencing. This way Trump has had no chance to make the case that his Immunity was violated.
Post a Comment