BREAKING: Trump's July 11th sentencing likely to be delayed indefinitely

[MagicMike]

It was unlikely left out of the constitution, as The President was not supposed to be above the law. This is a new ruling from the Supremes with no basis in The Constitution, created whole cloth. The Supremes going completely of the reservation, creating law from the bench.

Just because the prosecution agreed to allow convicted felon Trump to file this motion does not mean it is guaranteed to honor or even consider it.
In fact it probably won't make a bit of difference other than going into the procedural record to bolster the case against Trump by demonstrating that his defense was given every opportunity available to plead his case.

 

[Doc7505]

“Based partly on his time in the White House”

1. This will not be a drawn out motion. The judge will rule pretty quickly

2. Just being in the White House in no way means these acts were on any way “official”.

This will go nowhere and take very little time

~~~~~~
Does this also hold true for Bush 43, Barry, and Biden, or only for Trump?

 

[Donald H]

It was unlikely left out of the constitution, as The President was not supposed to be above the law. This is a new ruling from the Supremes with no basis in The Constitution, created whole cloth. The Supremes going completely of the reservation, creating law from the bench.

You may have chosen a foe in the Scotus, that has become the permanent word of the god.

Keep the faith and even consider AOC's way back at this time of great urgency and peril.

Mature Americans like you will be called upon in the coming few months to find a failsafe solution!

 

[Donald H]

Just because the prosecution agreed to allow convicted felon Trump to file this motion does not mean it is guaranteed to honor or even consider it.
In fact it probably won't make a bit of difference other than going into the procedural record to bolster the case against Trump by demonstrating that his defense was given every opportunity available to plead his case.

Whte 6 knows the truth. He's actually said that the president was not supposed to be above the law.

 

[White 6]

You may have chosen a foe in the Scotus, that has become the permanent word of the god.

Keep the faith and even consider AOC's way back at this time of great urgency and peril.

Mature Americans like you will be called upon in the coming few months to find a failsafe solution!

I have not got one. And AOC is and always has been nuts.

 

[Edgetho]

I think after this past week and today, it may be necessary to collect belts and shoelaces from the lefties.

LOL



New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his prosecution team have agreed to delay scheduled sentencing for former President Donald Trump on July 11 after the Supreme Court ruled Monday U.S. presidents have immunity for "official acts.” On Monday night Trump’s legal team filed a letter with Judge Juan Merchan to have 34 convictions in the case tossed out, citing the Supreme Court’s opinion.

"Although the Manhattan case does not center on Mr. Trump’s presidency or official acts — but rather personal activity during his campaign — his lawyers argued on Monday that prosecutors had built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House,” the New York Times reports. “And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only cannot charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations."

There's another, more likely, scenario.

Bragg will schedule a hearing, it lasts a couple of days, dimocrap FILTH Judge Merchan "The SCUMBAG dim" will submit his already-written dimocrap scumbag opinion and Trump will be sentenced. To WHAT? I have no idea. Wouldn't surprise me if Merchan "THE SCUMBAG" threw some weekend Jail Time in there.

And Bragg will not delay the sentencing through the Appeal process

 

[Foxfyre]

I think after this past week and today, it may be necessary to collect belts and shoelaces from the lefties.

LOL



New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his prosecution team have agreed to delay scheduled sentencing for former President Donald Trump on July 11 after the Supreme Court ruled Monday U.S. presidents have immunity for "official acts.” On Monday night Trump’s legal team filed a letter with Judge Juan Merchan to have 34 convictions in the case tossed out, citing the Supreme Court’s opinion.

"Although the Manhattan case does not center on Mr. Trump’s presidency or official acts — but rather personal activity during his campaign — his lawyers argued on Monday that prosecutors had built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House,” the New York Times reports. “And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only cannot charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations."

Yes. I received a text from Trump (or his campaign) this morning saying the sentencing had been postponed. And with the Georgia case petty much shut down for now and no sentencing in the document case and the Manhattan sentence almost certain to be overturned on appeal, Trump is free to devote his attention to his campaign and God willing victory in November.

And let's give him a good healthy majority in the House and Senate and then stand back and see the national nightmare we've all experienced the last three and a half years come to an end and sanity be restored.

 

[Donald H]

I have not got one. And AOC is and always has been nuts.

Millions of Americans just like you will be imagining a solution and they will be imagining the courage needed to uphold their Constitution from the darkness that could descend on America.

When you said that it wasn't supposed to be, you made it clear that you had to attend to completing your thoughts to finally understanding the inevitable.

 

[White 6]

Millions of Americans just like you will be imagining a solution and they will be imagining the courage needed to uphold their Constitution from the darkness that could descend on America.

When you said that it wasn't supposed to be, you made it clear that you had to attend to completing your thoughts to finally understanding the inevitable.

Donald, you are truly a depressing person. I cannot say, I disagree with much of what you have said in this thread. But, yes. It supports a depressing outcome, we may have to live with, if it comes to worst case scenario.

 

[Donald H]

But, yes. It supports a depressing outcome, we may have to live with, if it comes to worst case scenario.

I'm pretty sure your military isn't giving up with you.
Come to appreciate the gravity of the situation.

None of you really need more advice from a foreigner. You should all have all the information you need already.
Maybe tomorrow it will all start to sink it to some of the others too.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Because falsifying financial statements while paying for the silence of a pornographic film star in order to defraud the voting public is an "official duty?"

Which is a misdemeanor at best, and a dead one in reality.

 

[airplanemechanic]

It was unlikely left out of the constitution, as The President was not supposed to be above the law. This is a new ruling from the Supremes with no basis in The Constitution, created whole cloth. The Supremes going completely of the reservation, creating law from the bench.

Biden's DOJ demanded that SCOTUS rule on this quickly, so they did. Now that they didn't rule in Biden's DOJ's favor, now you complain.

It was based completely on the constitution AND based on past rulings. (see Nixon Vs Fitzgerald and Mississippi vs Johnson from 1867). Article 2 Section 4 states that a president may be "subject to prosecution" only when found guilty in an impeachment and removed from office." Trump was found innocent, twice actually, thus he is immune.

We went 230 of our 235 years without prosecuting a former president for what he did while in office because we knew that the president had immunity for official acts. You CANNOT have a president constantly worried that something he does while president will be prosecuted years after he is out of office and the next administration decides he did something they don't like. Basically, the left's behavior against Trump these last few years necessitated the SCOTUS to make it clear that the president CANNOT be prosecuted for things he did officially while president. Had you just left Trump the fuck alone, we wouldn't have to have SCOTUS step in and spank the ass of democrats like this.

You do realize this protects your cho-mo-n-chief Biden too, right?

It was a very fair, right down the middle decision, good job SCOTUS. Immunity for official acts but not personal ones, sounds good to me.

 

[marvin martian]

It's looking like the "34 fELoniES!!!" the left fought so hard to manufacture may be tossed altogether.

 

[White 6]

Biden's DOJ demanded that SCOTUS rule on this quickly, so they did. Now that they didn't rule in Biden's DOJ's favor, now you complain.

It was based completely on the constitution AND based on past rulings. (see Nixon Vs Fitzgerald and Mississippi vs Johnson from 1867). Article 2 Section 4 states that a president may be "subject to prosecution" only when found guilty in an impeachment and removed from office." Trump was found innocent, thus he is immune.

We went 230 of our 235 years without prosecuting a former president for what he did while in office because we knew that the president had immunity for official acts. You CANNOT have a president constantly worried that something he does while president will be prosecuted years after he is out of office and the next administration decides he did something they don't like. Basically, the left's behavior against Trump these last few years necessitated the SCOTUS to make it clear that the president CANNOT be prosecuted for things he did officially while president. Had you just left Trump the fuck alone, we wouldn't have to have SCOTUS step in and spank the ass of democrats like this.

You do realize this protects your cho-mo-n-chief Biden too, right?

It was a very fair, right down the middle decision, good job SCOTUS. Immunity for official acts but not personal ones, sounds good to me.

I can disagree with it if I want, as it is my privilege to have my own opinion. They are supposed to decide, based on the constitution, but did not, as it was not in the constitution, similarly to how Roe was not in the constitution, yet it was decided (making law from the bench) and took over 50 years to be kicked out by the Supremes, but was kicked out.

This is just one of those "beware of what you ask for" or in this case "beware of what you decide" type things, due to the laws of unintended consequences.

 

[airplanemechanic]

I can disagree with it if I want, as it is my privilege to have my own opinion. They are supposed to decide, based on the constitution, but did not, as it was not in the constitution, similarly to how Roe was not in the constitution, yet it was decided (making law from the bench) and took over 50 years to be kicked out by the Supremes, but was kicked out.

This is just one of those "beware of what you ask for" or in this case "beware of what you decide" type things, due to the laws of unintended consequences.

You can disagree with it all you want, and just like every other time, you're wrong. Case law has already been established that presidents had immunity. All the SCOTUS did was clarify it. They did not create law. Even CLINTON was shown to be immune in past case law.

 

[Dragonlady]

I think after this past week and today, it may be necessary to collect belts and shoelaces from the lefties.

LOL



New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his prosecution team have agreed to delay scheduled sentencing for former President Donald Trump on July 11 after the Supreme Court ruled Monday U.S. presidents have immunity for "official acts.” On Monday night Trump’s legal team filed a letter with Judge Juan Merchan to have 34 convictions in the case tossed out, citing the Supreme Court’s opinion.

"Although the Manhattan case does not center on Mr. Trump’s presidency or official acts — but rather personal activity during his campaign — his lawyers argued on Monday that prosecutors had built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House,” the New York Times reports. “And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only cannot charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations."

Since when is paying "hush money to a porn star" in any way an official act. Added to which, it was done BEFORE the election.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Since when is paying "hush money to a porn star" in any way an official act. Added to which, it was done BEFORE the election.

Well, in what way is paying hush money to a porn star a felony? Michael Jackson, Weinstein, Bill Orielly, Thomas Jefferson and Warren Harding all paid hush money. None were prosecuted for it.

 

[Dragonlady]

You can disagree with it all you want, and just like every other time, you're wrong. Case law has already been established that presidents had immunity. All the SCOTUS did was clarify it. They did not create law. Even CLINTON was shown to be immune in past case law.

Listen to the parrot reciting right wing talking points and bullshit.

Case law was the OPPOSITE. Under this ruling, Nixon could have stayed on as President, and not be charged with anything, much less impeached for corruption.

 

[Dragonlady]

Well, in what way is paying hush money to a porn star a felony?

When it's done is service to a conspiracy to defraud the voters in an election. Covering up true negative material about one candidate and publishing stories on the opposition which the publisher KNEW to be false, in the hopes of changing the outcome of the election, is election fraud, which makes the falsification of records to cover it up, a felony.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Listen to the parrot reciting right wing talking points and bullshit.

Case law was the OPPOSITE. Under this ruling, Nixon could have stayed on as President, and not be charged with anything, much less impeached for corruption.

Wrong. You're an idiot. This ruling has NOTHING to do with impeachment. If you want to impeach a president for something, go for it. Where does this ruling say you cannot impeach a president? Oh yea, it doesn't. Because you're a fucking liberal, thus a fucking moron and have no idea what the ruling actually said. Stop watching PMSDNC and CNN and you might actually LEARN something.

Impeachment is not a legal action. It has nothing to do with the courts. If he's impeached and removed, THEN article 2 section 4 states he can be prosecuted for it. But not until then.

God you're a fucking moron.