Supreme Court Denies Trumps Delay In Sentencing On Friday

Would you have preferred he had no trials at all but ended up losing the election?
I’d have preferred that lowlife scum, like the DNC honchos and their hench-thugs, not try to manipulate our legal system for insidious partisan political reasons.

Trump would have won handily against Potato or against HeelsUp, either way.
 
I’d have preferred that lowlife scum, like the DNC honchos and their hench-thugs, not try to manipulate our legal system for insidious partisan political reasons.
Well that wasn't my question.
Trump would have won handily against Potato or against HeelsUp, either way.
That's speculation, the evidence seems to be that he made a net gain in votes BECAUSE of the trials and the way he used them to garner sympathy from naive voters. So on what basis is he complaining? how has he been materially negatively impacted?
 
Well that wasn't my question.
Your faux question offered a false choice. So I answered it, as is appropriate, by getting to the nub. If that bothers you, I’m fine with that outcome. 👍
That's speculation, the evidence seems to be that he made a net gain in votes BECAUSE of the trials and the way he used them to garner sympathy from naive voters.
🥱
 
Your faux question offered a false choice. So I answered it, as is appropriate, by getting to the nub. If that bothers you, I’m fine with that outcome. 👍

🥱
So you agree? the trial has not had any measurable negative impact in him? claims to the contrary are just whining and sobbing.

The question is very clear would you prefer Trump won the election and avoid prison with a corrupt justice system or lose the election and face prison with an impartial justice system?

Which takes priority for you the legitimacy of the justice system or Trump being elected President? which of these two is the more important?
 
So you agree? the trial has not had any measurable negative impact in him?

No. Why would anyone agree with that ridiculous claim?

It was intended to politically wound or kill him. But it didn’t work. And it might even be true that the reaction to the insidious efforts did help engage a lot of people to vote for him. But that obviously doesn’t mean it helped him.

For if he hadn’t been so tied up with the bogus kangaroo-court bullshit, he may very well have been able to campaign even more effectively.
claims to the contrary are just whining and sobbing.
Your claims are just fallacious. They are akin to the fallacy of a predetermined outcome. The shit was intended to gut him. He won anyway. He might have won even more handily but-for the Democrap manipulation of the legal system.
 
I know. As I said, what he sought was to deny the persecution and the judge the ability to sentence him. I was clear about my prediction. And I was right. 🙂
The persecution was already done. Sentencing would have still happened if Trump lost the appeal.

The motion was a motion to vacate, and those are subject to interlocutory appeal because they have a material impact on the outcome in the case. Improper denials cannot be undone.

Due Process was denied to Trump by the SCOTUS.

Trump may well have lost the appeal, we will never know because he was not afforded the chance to argue it.
 
Which takes priority for you the legitimacy of the justice system or Trump being elected President? which of these two is the more important?
The legitimacy of the judicial system is more important than any individual.

That is the harm that has been inflicted by using it for political purposes, and the reason that it helped Trump is because Americans recognize it for what it is.

Now we are left with half the country having no respect for the judicial system or the DOJ, because the other half is perfectly fine with weaponizing it for political gain.
 
No. Why would anyone agree with that ridiculous claim?
Don't forget a Jury found him guilty, a jury were all members were approved by the defense.
It was intended to politically wound or kill him. But it didn’t work.
So you claim it was intended to do X yet it didn't do X so why believe it was ever intended to do X in the first place? It was intended to decide if he has committed fraud that's what the jurors did they decided that he did commit fraud.
And it might even be true that the reaction to the insidious efforts did help engage a lot of people to vote for him. But that obviously doesn’t mean it helped him.
The statistics say otherwise, look:

1736536038599.png

For if he hadn’t been so tied up with the bogus kangaroo-court bullshit, he may very well have been able to campaign even more effectively.
But the trial publicity coupled with his petulant posts and press conferences was PART OF his campaigning.
Your claims are just fallacious. They are akin to the fallacy of a predetermined outcome. The shit was intended to gut him.
How would it "gut" him? there was never a serious prospect of a custodial sentence.
He won anyway. He might have won even more handily but-for the Democrap manipulation of the legal system.
Trump says "jump" and you trumpanzees say "how high" with your shameful belief that everything he says is true.
 
The persecution was already done. Sentencing would have still happened if Trump lost the appeal.

The motion was a motion to vacate, and those are subject to interlocutory appeal because they have a material impact on the outcome in the case. Improper denials cannot be undone.

Due Process was denied to Trump by the SCOTUS.

Trump may well have lost the appeal, we will never know because he was not afforded the chance to argue it.
He delayed this and other trials by months and months, the timing of the verdicts and sentencing is due to Trump seeking such delays so they were close to the election, that was one of his goals all along.

Many of his trial would have been over two years ago but for him delaying them.
 
He delayed this and other trials by months and months, the timing of the verdicts and sentencing is due to Trump seeking such delays so they were close to the election, that was one of his goals all along.
The courts do not move quickly in this country, even civil suits typically take a year before the first hearing is held.

The delays were due to the fact that Trump's lawyers filed appropriate motions at appropriate times, and each one of those takes time to respond to and to be heard.

The trial was over by the time the SCOTUS ruled on Presidential Immunity, and Trump's attorneys filed the motion to vacate on those grounds. Sentencing was delayed due to the election being close, and the DA's office did not oppose that.

That did not prevent Merchan from ruling on the motion to vacate, he used it as an excuse to not make the ruling. Then he waited until the last minute to make the ruling, and scheduled the sentencing so that there was no time to appeal his ruling.
Many of his trial would have been over two years ago but for him delaying them.
There was no evidence in this trial that was newer than 2018. The timing is the fault of the DA for delaying to bring charges when Trump left office in January of 2021.
 
The courts do not move quickly in this country, even civil suits typically take a year before the first hearing is held.

The delays were due to the fact that Trump's lawyers filed appropriate motions at appropriate times, and each one of those takes time to respond to and to be heard.
You hit on the point. The motions that Trump filed, that you called "appropriate" were largely denied as being without merit. There were few delays from "appropriate" motions, it was all the "frivolous" motions that delayed Trumps trial for years.
 
The courts do not move quickly in this country, even civil suits typically take a year before the first hearing is held.

The delays were due to the fact that Trump's lawyers filed appropriate motions at appropriate times, and each one of those takes time to respond to and to be heard.

The trial was over by the time the SCOTUS ruled on Presidential Immunity, and Trump's attorneys filed the motion to vacate on those grounds.

Sentencing was delayed due to the election being close, and the DA's office did not oppose that.
Sentencing was delayed because Trump requested sentencing be delayed not "due to the election being close" Merchan could have sentenced him then and there, there's nothing in the law that cares about election dates.

His lawyers in August asked Justice Juan Merchan to push back his sentencing date until after the vote, citing "naked election-interference objectives." Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the charges against Trump, is a Democrat.

Merchan said on Friday he now planned to sentence Trump on Nov. 26, unless the case is dismissed before then.

"The imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance - however unwarranted - that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate," the judge wrote, opens new tab. "The Court is a fair, impartial and apolitical institution."

and the Judge agreed. Then it was delayed again at Trump's request:

In a one-page decision, Justice Juan Merchan postponed the sentencing, which had been set for Nov. 26, in order to weigh Trump’s bid to dismiss the case entirely based on the fact that he is now president-elect.

He then tried to delay again but it failed even the SCOTUS could see what he was up to.

That did not prevent Merchan from ruling on the motion to vacate, he used it as an excuse to not make the ruling. Then he waited until the last minute to make the ruling, and scheduled the sentencing so that there was no time to appeal his ruling.

There was no evidence in this trial that was newer than 2018. The timing is the fault of the DA for delaying to bring charges when Trump left office in 2020.
 
You hit on the point. The motions that Trump filed, that you called "appropriate" were largely denied as being without merit. There were few delays from "appropriate" motions, it was all the "frivolous" motions that delayed Trumps trial for years.
It does not matter that Merchan denied the motions- he denied everything. The motions had to be filed to preserve the appeal.

If you don't object to something at the trial court, the appeals court will not consider the error.
 
The persecution was already done.
Not fully. A case isn’t complete until the entry of judgment. Absent a sentencing, there can be no entry of judgment. So, the case was still ongoing.
Sentencing would have still happened if Trump lost the appeal.
Trump couldn’t appeal at all until entry of judgment. Now that this has been done, he can finally appeal. (The pleading he made to SCOTUS to prevent sentencing was not an appeal of his conviction at all.)
The motion was a motion to vacate,
No. His motion was to stay sentencing.
and those are subject to interlocutory appeal because they have a material impact on the outcome in the case. Improper denials cannot be undone.
This denial only says that the Court requires a complete record. Substantively, all of Trump’s appellate arguments are going to be in the table. The sentence will fall when the conviction gets vacated.
Due Process was denied to Trump by the SCOTUS
Ruling don’t believe so.
Trump may well have lost the appeal, we will never know because he was not afforded the chance to argue it.
He still gets to appeal. And he will. And i expect that he will prevail.
 
There was no evidence in this trial that was newer than 2018. The timing is the fault of the DA for delaying to bring charges when Trump left office in January of 2021.
You seem to have a short memory. Of the dozens of lawsuits, and appeals where Trump was trying to block the release of his income taxes. Working all the way to the US Supreme Court, who in every case they ruled on, or refused to hear, said that the subpoenas for them were proper.

Proof that the attempts by Trump to prevent the release of his taxes that Trump said he would do in 2016, shows why the case was delayed.

Had Bragg had Trumps taxes in 2018, he would have brought the case as soon as Trump left office.
 
It does not matter that Merchan denied the motions- he denied everything. The motions had to be filed to preserve the appeal.

If you don't object to something at the trial court, the appeals court will not consider the error.
Yep. Preservation “below” is usually required before an appellate court will address that point on appeal.
 
It does not matter that Merchan denied the motions- he denied everything. The motions had to be filed to preserve the appeal.

If you don't object to something at the trial court, the appeals court will not consider the error.
Remember, Trump appealed the denial of his motions, only to have the appeals court UPHOLD the motions denial. But of course the appeal process added additional delays to the case. Which I would call "frivolous", as supported by their denial at every appeal stage.
 
Not fully. A case isn’t complete until the entry of judgment. Absent a sentencing, there can be no entry of judgment. So, the case was still ongoing.
I did not say the case was closed. I said the persecution was already done.
Trump couldn’t appeal at all until entry of judgment. Now that this has been done, he can finally appeal. (The pleading he made to SCOTUS to prevent sentencing was not an appeal of his conviction at all.)
The petition to the SCOTUS was to delay sentencing until the Interlocutory appeal could be heard. That is all it was.

Due Process.
No. His motion was to stay sentencing.
No, he filed a motion to vacate based on immunity, and that motion was denied. That denial is subject to interlocutory appeal, and the appeal had not been heard.

What he filed with the SCOTUS was a petition to stay sentencing until the appeal could be heard.

"APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK COUNTY, NEW YORK, PENDING THE RESOLUTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY"
This denial only says that the Court requires a complete record.
It says no such thing.

"The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons.

First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.

Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a brief virtual hearing.

Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application."
Substantively, all of Trump’s appellate arguments are going to be in the table. The sentence will fall when the conviction gets vacated.

Ruling don’t believe so.

He still gets to appeal. And he will. And i expect that he will prevail.
Yes, he is likely to prevail on appeal, but that does not undo the fact that an appeal (that he has a right to) was denied him.
 

Forum List

Back
Top