september 18! that is the new date for sentencing.
I’ve read that the SCOTUS ruling really could jeopardize this verdict – because some of the evidence came from while Trump was president, and therefore could be covered by the “official acts” stuff (i.e. talking to his advisors or whatever).
If this is accurate, it’s absolutely IMPERATIVE that Judge Merchan force SCOTUS to rule or overturn the verdict, he should absolutely not do it for them. Merchan needs to find some interpretation or way to rule to NOT set aside the verdict, and move to sentencing, even if he thinks it will be subsequently overturned. It’s ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that the headlines be (if the verdict is ultimately nullified) “SCOTUS OVERTURNS TRUMP GUILTY VERDICT”, rather than “JUDGE MERCHAN SETS ASIDE TRUMP GUILTY VERDICT”.
EDIT: Fixed judge’s name.
the judge is merchan in the manhattan case.
Thanks, fixed.
it gets confusing. 4 judges no waiting.
oh wait, there is a second date sept. 6. ah, ruling to be on the 6th and sentencing on the 18th.
things are moving fast on msnbc.
It’s official:
Is anyone else tired of evil winning, like I am?
And tired of Trump getting every possible break.
Just tired of Trump period, actually. Good or bad, he always seems to dominate the news. Which is exactly what he wants actually.
It’s like that Fall Out Boy song: I don’t care what you think
As long as it’s about me
I understand the SC ruling to be that if a president says it’s an official act, then it IS. And nobody may question his motivations. Of course, this only applies to Trump, as I’m sure if Biden tries anything they will rule the opposite.
No, they said there must be preliminary evidentiary hearings to determine what’s official or not, and by extension, what’s admissible. It has cluster@#$& written all over it.
ETA: For acts conducted within his core constitutional powers, his motivations are no concern for the courts.
But all of the Stormy stuff, both sleeping with her and paying her off, happened before he was president, so that should fall, unquestionably, outside the scope of the ruling, right?
The pundits I’ve heard say that the charge would withstand review, but potentially some of the evidence used in the trial could be deemed inadmissible (e.g., certain texts). If any was determined to be inadmissible, the judge would have to decide if the remaining evidence was sufficient to support a guilty verdict. If not, new trial.
Said pundits say this does not necessarily make a successful appeal likely, but the defense does now have bullets in their gun they did not previously.
Doesn’t this get back to the whole objecting for the record thing, though? Legal-type folks tell us that if something hinky happens during a trial, the attorneys have to object to it right away, because if they don’t, it makes it very difficult to appeal on that grounds later. Which makes sense, because otherwise, you get questions like “Well, what would the jury have decided, if they didn’t have that testimony?”.
Did any of Trump’s lawyers object to the testimony on the grounds that it was subject to Presidential immunity?
Not sure, and it’s a good question. But if the pundits I heard (who are all lawyers with impressive pedigrees) are on the right track, they didn’t mention that as an obstacle.
My “IANAL” hunch is that they couldn’t have raised an objection (or used Presidential immunity as an affirmative defense), at trial, based on an issue that hadn’t yet been adjudicated by the SCOTUS.
That is not true at all.
That is what legal experts say. The issue is the Georgia case. Is interfering in an election an “official act”? I think SCOTUS will say no, but it depends on what the evidence it.
I don’t see how it could be an official act, given that he wasn’t an official at that point.
My prediction:
If Trump loses the election, the SC will say “no”
If Trump wins the election , the SC will say “yes, official act”. In this case, Trump will move to eliminate his political opponents. Welcome to the one party state.