Now What?!? Judge rejects Trump’s bid to toss hush money conviction because of Supreme Court immunity ruling

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Another appeal?

Judge rejects Trump’s bid to toss hush money conviction because of Supreme Court immunity ruling

NEW YORK — (AP) — A judge Monday refused to throw out President-elect Donald Trump's hush money conviction because of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity. But the overall future of the historic case remains unclear.​

​

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan's decision blocks one potential off-ramp from the case ahead of the former and future president's return to office next month. His lawyers have raised other arguments for dismissal, however. It's unclear when — or whether — a sentencing date might be set.​

​

Prosecutors have said there should be some accommodation for his upcoming presidency, but they insist the conviction should stand.​

​

​

A jury convicted Trump in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies wrongdoing.​

​

​

The allegations involved a scheme to hide the payout to Daniels during the final days of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to keep her from publicizing — and keep voters from hearing — her claim of a sexual encounter with the married then-businessman years earlier. He says nothing sexual happened between them.​

​

A month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents can't be prosecuted for official acts — things they did in the course of running the country — and that prosecutors can't cite those actions to bolster a case centered on purely personal, unofficial conduct.​

​

Trump's lawyers then cited the Supreme Court opinion to argue that the hush money jury got some improper evidence, such as Trump's presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.​

​

In Monday’s ruling, Merchan denied the bulk of Trump’s claims that some of prosecutors’ evidence related to official acts and implicated immunity protections.​

​

​

The judge said that even if he found that some evidence related to official conduct, he’d still conclude that prosecutors’ decision to use “these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”​

​

Even if prosecutors had erroneously introduced evidence that could be challenged under an immunity claim, Merchan continued, “such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.”​

​

Prosecutors had said the evidence in question was only "a sliver" of their case.​

​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Moderators would you please merge this with the existing thread I overlooked here please. Or you can just delete it.
Merchan stands firm on hush money case.

Thank you....

-Newsvine_Mariyam

 

[jbrownson0831]

Another appeal?

Judge rejects Trump’s bid to toss hush money conviction because of Supreme Court immunity ruling

NEW YORK — (AP) — A judge Monday refused to throw out President-elect Donald Trump's hush money conviction because of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity. But the overall future of the historic case remains unclear.​

​

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan's decision blocks one potential off-ramp from the case ahead of the former and future president's return to office next month. His lawyers have raised other arguments for dismissal, however. It's unclear when — or whether — a sentencing date might be set.​

​

Prosecutors have said there should be some accommodation for his upcoming presidency, but they insist the conviction should stand.​

​

​

A jury convicted Trump in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies wrongdoing.​

​

​

The allegations involved a scheme to hide the payout to Daniels during the final days of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to keep her from publicizing — and keep voters from hearing — her claim of a sexual encounter with the married then-businessman years earlier. He says nothing sexual happened between them.​

​

A month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents can't be prosecuted for official acts — things they did in the course of running the country — and that prosecutors can't cite those actions to bolster a case centered on purely personal, unofficial conduct.​

​

Trump's lawyers then cited the Supreme Court opinion to argue that the hush money jury got some improper evidence, such as Trump's presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.​

​

In Monday’s ruling, Merchan denied the bulk of Trump’s claims that some of prosecutors’ evidence related to official acts and implicated immunity protections.​

​

​

The judge said that even if he found that some evidence related to official conduct, he’d still conclude that prosecutors’ decision to use “these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”​

​

Even if prosecutors had erroneously introduced evidence that could be challenged under an immunity claim, Merchan continued, “such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.”​

​

Prosecutors had said the evidence in question was only "a sliver" of their case.​

​

Dimtard judges are just as ignorant as regular dimtards.
Merchan will be looking for work at WalMart.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I love that Stormy was ordered to pay Trump $300k.

He only paid her $130k. All she had to do was not be a dumb bitch. But, she is a sex worker. They are not the brightest…look at dumb fuck Kamala.

Kamala married a WHITE MAN WHO BEATS WOMEN. Shrewd.

Stormy Daniels must pay $300k to Donald Trump after losing defamation case appeal

“I will go to jail before I pay a penny,” the adult film actor tweeted after an appeals court ruled against her.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[kyzr]

No worries, Merchan is a hack whose "convictions" will be overturned on appeal.

Buzz Kill: The Trump Conviction Presents a Target-Rich Environment for Appeal

Below is my column in the Hill on the most compelling grounds for an appeal in the Trump case after his conviction on 34 counts in Manhattan. There has been considerable criticism of the defense te…

jonathanturley.org

However, after the instructions became public, I wrote a column that I thought the case was nearly un-winnable, even for those of us who previously saw a chance for a hung jury. Clarence Darrow would likely have lost with those instructions after the errors in the case by Judge Juan Merchan.

 

[scruffy]

Merchan needs disbar.

 

[Clipper]

I love that Stormy was ordered to pay Trump $300k.

He only paid her $130k. All she had to do was not be a dumb bitch. But, she is a sex worker. They are not the brightest…look at dumb fuck Kamala.

Kamala married a WHITE MAN WHO BEATS WOMEN. Shrewd.

Stormy Daniels must pay $300k to Donald Trump after losing defamation case appeal

“I will go to jail before I pay a penny,” the adult film actor tweeted after an appeals court ruled against her.

www.nbcnews.com

Think you'll ever stop with the over that subhuman's felony convictions? Here, will this help?

 

[Dante]

Another appeal?

Judge rejects Trump’s bid to toss hush money conviction because of Supreme Court immunity ruling

NEW YORK — (AP) — A judge Monday refused to throw out President-elect Donald Trump's hush money conviction because of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity. But the overall future of the historic case remains unclear.​

​

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan's decision blocks one potential off-ramp from the case ahead of the former and future president's return to office next month. His lawyers have raised other arguments for dismissal, however. It's unclear when — or whether — a sentencing date might be set.​

​

Prosecutors have said there should be some accommodation for his upcoming presidency, but they insist the conviction should stand.​

​

​

A jury convicted Trump in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies wrongdoing.​

​

​

The allegations involved a scheme to hide the payout to Daniels during the final days of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to keep her from publicizing — and keep voters from hearing — her claim of a sexual encounter with the married then-businessman years earlier. He says nothing sexual happened between them.​

​

A month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents can't be prosecuted for official acts — things they did in the course of running the country — and that prosecutors can't cite those actions to bolster a case centered on purely personal, unofficial conduct.​

​

Trump's lawyers then cited the Supreme Court opinion to argue that the hush money jury got some improper evidence, such as Trump's presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.​

​

In Monday’s ruling, Merchan denied the bulk of Trump’s claims that some of prosecutors’ evidence related to official acts and implicated immunity protections.​

​

​

The judge said that even if he found that some evidence related to official conduct, he’d still conclude that prosecutors’ decision to use “these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”​

​

Even if prosecutors had erroneously introduced evidence that could be challenged under an immunity claim, Merchan continued, “such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.”​

​

Prosecutors had said the evidence in question was only "a sliver" of their case.​

​

Appeals court denies Trump's bid to delay hush money sentencing

Appeals court denies Trump's bid to delay hush money sentencing

Appeals court denies Trump's bid to delay hush money sentencing

 

[kyzr]

If the Merchan sentence is nothing, can Trump still appeal the 34 "Lawfare" felonies?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Merchan wanting to sentence Trump on Jan 10th is like a referee of a high school basketball game in which the visiting team is leading by thirty-three points. With three seconds to go, two players bump into each other and the angry referee calls a flagrant foul and makes the visitors stand around while the home team gets their meaningless free thows, after which the home team chalks up another defeat and the visitors another runaway victory over them.

In the locker room, the referee joins the hometeam in crying while the coach of the home team congratulates the ref for getting one shot in, since the team failed so miserably in honest competition.

 

[Moonglow]

Another appeal?

Judge rejects Trump’s bid to toss hush money conviction because of Supreme Court immunity ruling

NEW YORK — (AP) — A judge Monday refused to throw out President-elect Donald Trump's hush money conviction because of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity. But the overall future of the historic case remains unclear.​

​

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan's decision blocks one potential off-ramp from the case ahead of the former and future president's return to office next month. His lawyers have raised other arguments for dismissal, however. It's unclear when — or whether — a sentencing date might be set.​

​

Prosecutors have said there should be some accommodation for his upcoming presidency, but they insist the conviction should stand.​

​

​

A jury convicted Trump in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies wrongdoing.​

​

​

The allegations involved a scheme to hide the payout to Daniels during the final days of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to keep her from publicizing — and keep voters from hearing — her claim of a sexual encounter with the married then-businessman years earlier. He says nothing sexual happened between them.​

​

A month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents can't be prosecuted for official acts — things they did in the course of running the country — and that prosecutors can't cite those actions to bolster a case centered on purely personal, unofficial conduct.​

​

Trump's lawyers then cited the Supreme Court opinion to argue that the hush money jury got some improper evidence, such as Trump's presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.​

​

In Monday’s ruling, Merchan denied the bulk of Trump’s claims that some of prosecutors’ evidence related to official acts and implicated immunity protections.​

​

​

The judge said that even if he found that some evidence related to official conduct, he’d still conclude that prosecutors’ decision to use “these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”​

​

Even if prosecutors had erroneously introduced evidence that could be challenged under an immunity claim, Merchan continued, “such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.”​

​

Prosecutors had said the evidence in question was only "a sliver" of their case.​

​

Trump is not president yet

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Merchan is "here comes da Judge, here comes day Judge."

Poor MAGA, weeping in their beer for soon to be President Felonious.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Dimtard judges are just as ignorant as regular dimtards.
Merchan will be looking for work at WalMart.

You can only wish

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Appeals court denies Trump's bid to delay hush money sentencing

Appeals court denies Trump's bid to delay hush money sentencing

Appeals court denies Trump's bid to delay hush money sentencing

I'll believe it when it's entered into the docket

 

[jbrownson0831]

You can only wish

I think that the Landslide, has....you down...oh-ohhh
Poor libber.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Another appeal?

Judge rejects Trump’s bid to toss hush money conviction because of Supreme Court immunity ruling

NEW YORK — (AP) — A judge Monday refused to throw out President-elect Donald Trump's hush money conviction because of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity. But the overall future of the historic case remains unclear.​

​

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan's decision blocks one potential off-ramp from the case ahead of the former and future president's return to office next month. His lawyers have raised other arguments for dismissal, however. It's unclear when — or whether — a sentencing date might be set.​

​

Prosecutors have said there should be some accommodation for his upcoming presidency, but they insist the conviction should stand.​

​

​

A jury convicted Trump in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies wrongdoing.​

​

​

The allegations involved a scheme to hide the payout to Daniels during the final days of Trump's 2016 presidential campaign to keep her from publicizing — and keep voters from hearing — her claim of a sexual encounter with the married then-businessman years earlier. He says nothing sexual happened between them.​

​

A month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents can't be prosecuted for official acts — things they did in the course of running the country — and that prosecutors can't cite those actions to bolster a case centered on purely personal, unofficial conduct.​

​

Trump's lawyers then cited the Supreme Court opinion to argue that the hush money jury got some improper evidence, such as Trump's presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.​

​

In Monday’s ruling, Merchan denied the bulk of Trump’s claims that some of prosecutors’ evidence related to official acts and implicated immunity protections.​

​

​

The judge said that even if he found that some evidence related to official conduct, he’d still conclude that prosecutors’ decision to use “these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”​

​

Even if prosecutors had erroneously introduced evidence that could be challenged under an immunity claim, Merchan continued, “such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.”​

​

Prosecutors had said the evidence in question was only "a sliver" of their case.​

​

Fake Lawfare always loses in front of actual judges dimbot.

 

[berg80]

The greater concern noted by these same sources is whether the burden impedes on a sitting President's ability to perform his constitutional duties. Defendant analogizes that the same concern applies equally to a President-elect, arguing that the demands on his time to appear at sentencing would be so significant as to impede his ability to prepare for his constitutional duties during the transition period. This Court is not persuaded. Having addressed and resolved all matters brought before this Court and the verdict now more than half a year behind us, all that remains outstanding in this case is the issuance of this Decision and the imposition of sentence. Scheduling sentence is a function that remains exclusively within the purview of the trial judge and can be easily set down for a date and time certain to minimize disruption and inconvenience, provided that applicable statutory obligations are met. Defendant argues that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith's decision to dismiss the Defendant's federal indictments is evidence of a mandate that all criminal cases pending against the President-elect must cease immediately. The vastly different procedural posture of the instant case tenders any comparison to the Special Counsel's indictments unpersuasive.
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFs/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Clayton Decision.pdf

When Nancy Mace called Dotard to make him aware Johnson would fail to be voted in as Speaker on the first ballot, and that he needed to intervene, he was on the golf course.

 

[berg80]

From Merchan.......

Further, while Defendant now claims this Court cannot and must not sentence Defendant, the record is clear that Defendant not only consented to, but in fact requested the very adjournment that led us down the path we are on. As the parties ate await, it was on Defendant's application, without opposition from the People, that sentence was adjourned until after the Presidential election. Any claim Defendant may have that circumstances have changed as a result of Defendant's victory in the Presidential election, while convenient, is disingenuous. Defendant has always pronounced, since the inception of this case, confidence and indeed the expectation, that he would prevail in the 2024 Election - confidence that has proven well-founded. That he would become the "President-elect" and be required to assume all the responsibilities that come with the transition were entirely anticipated. Thus, it was fair for this Court to trust that his request to adjourn sentencing until after the election carried with it the implied consent that he would face sentence during the window between the election and the taking of the oath of office. The Supreme Court's decision in Trump has delayed sentence - not precluded it.

 

[newrebel]

Absolute, pure fraud. They crossed all the lines. Now the people must take justice into their own hands and execute the judge.

 

[kyzr]

Absolute, pure fraud. They crossed all the lines. Now the people must take justice into their own hands and execute the judge.

Bad idea newbie, never advocate violence, or you may be banned.