Now, I ain't a lawyer, nor do I have any familiarity with New York law....either criminal or Tort.
However, I am willing to believe that New York has always had a law against assaulting a woman by pulling her pants down, and forcefully and non-consensually inserting one's fingers into her. And then lying about it and defaming her.
A criminal law? Probably
A tort law. Most certainly.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the judge thought it prudent to 'wait'. She didn't dispose of the case, or dismiss it. She scheduled other pressing cases ahead of it until the Appeals court ruling.
It can be promptly re-inserted into her court upon a ruling by the 3-judge Appeals Court that finds that Trump does NOT have complete and total immunity in all things. If they rule soon then, given Chutkans' propensity to move things along, it could go to trial in April or May.
------------------------------------
Indeed, he does. But you see one's words signal to listeners the intent, the character, the purpose of the speaker. Most especially of leaders.
Their words do not happen in a vacuum, and they do not ...NOT... have an impact, or influence. They do. Words have meaning. And to the listener those meanings are important.
You daughter's new boyfriend has the right to free speech and can loudly proclaim at your Thanksgiving table that the meal tastes like garbage. But........but because those words have meaning, there will be an impact. The listeners will note it....and judge accordingly. There will be results deriving from such words.
That's from a Captain Obvious TED Talk.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed both candidates did, through the legal protocols and channels. And too they were not co-conspirators in attempts to illegally change the results of the election, which is exactly what some of those 91 indictments assert that Don Trump did.