How often are problems exacerbated simply because people didn’t want to deal with them now? Is it going to be any better or worse if Trump is elected and then sentenced? Do we wait until after January 20th for some reason? Merchan set the sentencing for the 18th of September and I believe he plans on keeping it come hell or high water. Trump is guitly and it’s time for him to be sentenced.
At some point you just have to bite the bullet and get it over with. There’s no perfect timing here.
The Judge didnt, but it was decided that presidential immunity did not apply., he already delayed sentencing once to get that decided. Once it does- trump is just another rich white collar criminal, and should be treated at one.
That should not be a reason .
Right.
On reflection I agree that you and @DSeid are correct.
I also expect he would remain out pending appeal so there’s that to knock down any claims he’s being prevented from campaigning.
Yep. Maybe with some qualifications- one of which may be - no consorting with known felons- which would be hilarious.
If I understand what you’re saying here, you’re wrong. Justice Merchan set a date for September 16th to issue his ruling of whether immunity applies.
The sentencing hearing remains set for September 18th and emphatically remains unchanged, despite Trump’s request for a further continuance. But there is not yet a ruling on the immunity issue.
Yes, but he already delayed the date once for that reason-
Judge Juan Merchan has already delayed sentencing once, at Trump’s request, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity.
Trump was originally scheduled to be sentenced on July 11. Judge Merchan ruled last month that he would rule on Trump’s immunity claim on Sept. 16 and impose sentencing two days later.
Oh, ok. It wasn’t clear to me what you were referring to. But yes, I knew Trump had already received one continuance. It doesn’t mean he won’t receive another on the 16th of September, depending on what happens at that hearing and how Justice Merchan rules.
I’m sticking with my earlier prediction of a further continuance until after the election. Judge Merchan is in a very difficult position. Much like Comey in 2016, it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I hope I’m wrong, because voters are entitled to see with clarity that their candidate for president is indeed a convicted felon and is facing meaningful consequences, and that even more serious convictions are in his future. But I’m thinking that Merchan may want to minimize fireworks in such an unprecedented situation. Once Trump has lost the election, all bets are off. What is remarkable is that this lifelong conman and now felon is running a viable campaign for the presidency. As Yakov Smirnoff would say, “what a country!”
And Comey did- and handed the election to trump. It is only kinda fair that the shoe is on the other foot now.
You know, I hadn’t read the letter Justice Merchan issued contained in the .pdf file I referenced in my prior post. I was just looking for something that showed there was not yet a ruling on the immunity issue.
Based on reading that letter, the impression I have is that Justice Merchan intends to act as I previously stated, either dismissing the counts related to the checks written while in the Oval Office, or denying Trump’s motion that immunity applies.
If he chooses the second option, Trump will immediately seek leave to appeal that ruling to a higher court. A continuance will then be granted for Trump to pursue his avenues of appeal.
If he chooses the first option, then I expect the matter will proceed to sentencing on September 18th – and I think Justice Merchan will impose a jail term as part of the sentencing, but he will stay service of that term to a date past the election. This is not the same thing as suspending the sentence. The jail term is part of the punishment imposed and is merely delayed to a date certain past November 5th.
As @Moriarty previously noted, Justice Merchan is known to be rather stern in the sentences he imposes.
If he were to assiduously comply with SCOTUS’s decision, I don’t see how Merchan (or SCOTUS on appeal) could deem writing a personal business check becomes any sort of official presidential act (core or otherwise) by virtue of taking place in the Oval Office.
And by that I mean I lack the imagination to conjure up the logic they’d use that would still be consistent, even vaguely consistent, with their ruling. I don’t mean they wouldn’t rule in Trump’s favor. But it would be a hell of a tap dance if they do.
It’s a dumb argument with lots of problems, but I expect it would be something along these lines.
How many of the 34 charges were for acts taken while he was in office?
From my perspective I’d rather see him sentenced for 34-x charges than given an avenue for the Supreme Court to make more president-as-king rulings.
At that point, why can’t he just appeal after he’s sentenced like everyone else? I don’t dispute he’ll try, but I hope it’s not successful
Would it be possible for Merchan to sentence Trump on Sept 18 for MOST of the counts, and then give a continuance on the sentencing for the counts where Trump was president when he signed checks in the white house? (2 I think).
This would seem to solve the problem - kick the can on the immunity for the two counts, but nobody can say that Trump had immunity for crimes he committed before he was elected - not even this Supreme Court (I hope)
The charges were for a total of 34 falsified checks, invoices, and vouchers that were created over the course of 2017. Maybe one or two was prior to his inauguration.
Unless I’m mistaken, the criminality pretty much all happened while he was in office.
The question isn’t about if the crimes happened when he was in office. The issue is that some of the evidence used at trial was from when he was president. The SCOTUS ruling could mean that none of that after-in-office evidence should have been allowed.
Confused. So evidence of crimes committed before an election cannot be considered if that evidence was uncovered/gathered/revealed/created after an election, but only if you win?
AIUI, evidence of a crime cannot be used as evidence of a crime if you’re President. Therefore, SCOTUS has nullified Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. I don’t see why it would be different for crimes committed before one becomes President.
This may well be Justice Marchan’s thinking. But we both know it’s not Trump’s.