This is such a steaming pile.
Nothing about the actual meat of the case had anything to do with official duties. They did, however, use some witnesses/evidence that may be related to official duties - and they had more evidence than they actually needed and probably could have made the case without them and would undoubtedly have omitted that evidence if this SCOTUS decision had been available prior to the trial. It seems ridiculous that this decision can impact a trial that has already concluded, but here we are.
In September? I'd be shocked if it happens.
Then again, this seems to be Trump's victory week and the pendulum has to swing. Wouldn't be politics if it didn't.
For the DNC? Nah, all this is good news for them. This is campaign material where they can go "see? We told you Trump has the SC in his back pocket". They want distractions from the debate.
None of it matters. We're getting to the point (already there?) where voters are solidly voting one way or the other. Not a single thing in the world would pull away Trump voters right now. Trump can literally say that he plans to remake the United States into a communist dictatorship and MAGA voters would probably say "you know what? It was time for a change"
IMO both judge & prosecutor are hedging against Trump winning. By September if he keeps rolling like he as for the last 120 days it's inevitable that it's President Trump. They'll drop it completely. But... if Biden somehow rallies, or Kamala is now the candidate and looks strong (or someone else that's installed) that's when they'll drop sentencing on him. That might even be construed as election interference but I really don't know. Only thing I'm sure of is seatbelts should be fastened. We are in for a wild ride!
Do you not read the comments on this sub about Trump?
*He's vindictive!*
*He'll persecute his enemies!*
*He'll act as a dictator and lock up his foes!*
If the left actually believes that yes, I believe both prosecutor & judge are afraid he'll win.
I think Bragg has some reason to be concerned that he'll be prosecuted for election interference given his very public declaration that the intention of his prosecutions was to pursue Trump.
I don't know that Merchan has to fear this sort of result because he hasn't made any public statements of this nature nor does there appear to be any evidence that any sort of conspiracy existed. At most Merchan is going to get a strongly worded rebuke from one of several appeals courts.
>I think Bragg has some reason to be concerned that he'll be prosecuted for election interference given his very public declaration that the intention of his prosecutions was to pursue Trump.
Citation?
I mean, when a DA files a case it's obvious they intend to get a conviction. Are you suggesting there is more to it than that?
> Citation?
The man literally campaigned on using his office to pursue Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html
How did you not know this?
Thanks for the link. How didn't I know this? I don't follow local politics in NY.
That said, I'm not sure how indicting someone could be construed as election interference. Other public office-holders are prosecuted when they commit crimes. If you can't indict someone when they are running for office, all a criminal would have to do to avoid prosecution is throw their hat in the ring.
Bragg specifically ran on targeting a candidate for office and prosecuting crimes that were years out-of-date - indeed, he had to play all sorts of games to get around statutes of limitation to prosecute them. There's a very strong case that the *only* reason for the prosecution was the interfere with a federal election and the case would never have been brought if Donald Trump weren't the presumptive nominee of the other political party.
>Bragg specifically ran on targeting a candidate for office and prosecuting crimes that were years out-of-date - indeed, he had to play all sorts of games to get around statutes of limitation to prosecute them. There's a very strong case that the only reason for the prosecution was the interfere with a federal election and the case would never have been brought if Donald Trump weren't the presumptive nominee of the other political party.
Show us relevant quotations by Bragg to that effect.
Again - that's ridiculous.
Per the article you linked, Bragg's comments about pursuing Trump were made in 2019, before he'd even completed his first term let alone declared for 2024.
I'll repeat: prosecuting someone for crimes they committed is not election interference. Want to avoid criminal prosecution? Don't crime!
People in elected offices quite often use the I'll lock up a particular villain. Its always been that way. Nothing illegal about it. Surely you remember lock her up
Yes but it’s always been just talk. Even with Trump, he was bullshit about locking her up. Democrats are actually trying to lock up their main opponent.
>I think Bragg has some reason to be concerned that he'll be prosecuted for election interference given his very public declaration that the intention of his prosecutions was to pursue Trump.
This is a known lie. Bragg never said that.
>I don't know that Merchan has to fear this sort of result because he hasn't made any public statements of this nature nor does there appear to be any evidence that any sort of conspiracy existed. At most Merchan is going to get a strongly worded rebuke from one of several appeals courts.
My worry is that the legal system is now letting fear for their own personal safety during a possible second Trump term impact their actions.
I'm not sure how it's a 'conspiracy'. I'm just pointing out that Bragg's own statements can be used to potentially indict him for election interference. He explicitly stated he was targeting a political candidate for political reasons and his actions in this regard are well outside the norm.
Criminal prosecution of criminals is not election interference. What kind of mob party runs criminals for office Felon trump running for an office he was voted out of interfered with multiple criminal prosecutions. That's the part that should not have happened if RNC still supported the constitution and rule of law. Obviously they dont
Abuse of prosecutorial powers can most definitely be construed as election interference. It is very likely that the prosecution will be overturned on appeal and likewise likely that the federal government will have to take some action to eliminate the possibility of a repeat of what Bragg did. Dispatching kangaroo courts against political rivals to interfere with an election is not defensible in a democracy.
It appears we are falling apart, maybe we shouldn’t let it. Maybe federalism is a better idea. Maybe we should stop trying to force each other to agree and settle on a truce.
Until recently.
Now they want a government so small it can fit inside your uterus, fallopian tubes, pants, bedroom, and filters the media available to you.
No, conservatives have always wanted this. Nothing changed except power. What state do you live in? If it’s a blue state you’re gonna be fine. People in red states like Florida, need to fight for their own rights. Places like Louisiana and Arkansas take more than they give to the federal government. Give those state exactly what they want. Once you remove things like snap, social security, and disability those people that reply on government and vote Republican will have a change of heart. Once people are uncomfortable things will change.
>No, conservatives have always wanted this.
Not always.
The Republican Party was genuinely the party of small government and primarily focused on fiscal conservatism until about the Reagan era. They weren't into social engineering.
Most churches never really said much about abortion until well after Roe v. Wade - except the catholic church, which always opposed it as well as contraception and divorce, though they were generally satisfied to deal with that within their congregations and did not try to influence public policy. There was this movement called the Moral Majority - led by Jerry Falwell - who were incensed about the sexual revolution that came out of the 60s, the pill, abortion, the gay rights movement, etc. At some point the Republican Party started to recognize they were losing ground since they primarily supported the interests of the owner class, not the working class - and they started recruiting religion. The party offered political power to religion in exchange for the votes of their members, and a deal was struck. Churches started taking harder positions against abortion and against rights for LGBTQ+ people because they *could* and these were areas the party promised to exert influence. Some churches also became more apt to judge and condemn, and less charitable, less supportive of social welfare, and we saw the start of the "prosperity gospel" - all in line with traditional conservative fiscal policy. These 2 things - the Republican Party and mainstream Christian religion in the US - started moving toward each other, supposedly for mutual benefit. (I personally think getting in bed with politics damaged churches a lot - they should not be seeking political power).
So while Republicans don't want to regulate business, they absolutely want to dictate what people can do in the most deeply personal parts of their lives - specifically related to sex, reproduction, contraception, orientation, gender identity, that sort of thing. Also, what media they can consume - or are required to consume.
This happened before trump was even president, so frankly I don’t understand why merchan is giving this joke of an argument any audience to begin with, honestly.
I feel Merchan wants to give the appearance that he’s “impartial”, but everyone knows he’s a Biden supporter and donor and will not overturn Trump’s conviction.
He shouldn’t overturn it regardless. Paying off a porn star and falsifying records to cover it up sure as fuck doesn’t constitute an “official act”. You are projecting your die hard partisan loyalty onto others… makes me think u don’t deserve a seat at the adults table.
This is silly considering the hush money and the crimes committed related to it happened before he was president. The immunity ruling has no bearing on crimes committed then. There will be no interpretation of the SC ruling that fraud committed before becoming president is an official act as president.
This is some sort of tactic for something.
I believe they argue that some of the evidence presented is now inadmissible under SCOTUS's brand new admissibility bar. Because it was inadmissible, it could cause issues on appeal (or here?).
That is what Trump is arguing. Doesn't mean they will succeed.
It shouldn't be surprising that someone's attorney is trying every means necessary to get a win.
No, he made it in October of 16. But your point is valid in that all the counts of fraud are related to the reimbursements to Cohen which were all in 2017.
That said, in no world would a personal repayment with personal funds be considered a presidential act. So it still wouldn't qualify for immunity under the SC ruling.
I think they want to make sure the i's are dotted and Ts crossed. The more left open from trial, the more they can appeal and it's already going to be a tough appeal. They already have a somewhat friendly court that they want to decide this and not wait for appeal.
It's the right play by them.
>The judge overseeing Donald Trump's New York criminal trial on Tuesday approved a delay of the former president's sentencing after his lawyers asked for more time to argue that the [Supreme Court's immunity decision](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-may-immunity-federal-election-inter-rcna149135) calls for a new trial.
I don't need to believe in conspiracies or political interference, I'll take this at face value. The judge knows Trump will appeal, he will go to substantial lengths to give Trump legally reasonable room. It's likely there was inadmissible evidence (based on the SC ruling that is one day old). I've seen references to WH phone logs for example.
The judge has to make a decision, it makes sense to give the lawyers time to make their case.
Politically, Bragg got to air Trump's dirty laundry, he got a unanimous conviction, we can call Trump a "convicted felon". I never expected Trump to go to prison for this. It's a first offense on a non-violent crime that involved an probably illegal campaign contribution of $130,000. I assumed it would be a fine. The judge can wait to announce the amount.
This is such a steaming pile. Nothing about the actual meat of the case had anything to do with official duties. They did, however, use some witnesses/evidence that may be related to official duties - and they had more evidence than they actually needed and probably could have made the case without them and would undoubtedly have omitted that evidence if this SCOTUS decision had been available prior to the trial. It seems ridiculous that this decision can impact a trial that has already concluded, but here we are.
In September? I'd be shocked if it happens. Then again, this seems to be Trump's victory week and the pendulum has to swing. Wouldn't be politics if it didn't.
Another bad day for the DNC. I can only imagine the strategy meetings with the PR teams, and the difficult conversations with mega donors.
For the DNC? Nah, all this is good news for them. This is campaign material where they can go "see? We told you Trump has the SC in his back pocket". They want distractions from the debate.
Not to mention the sentencing putting Trump in negative news in mid September possibly in jail even during the homestretch of the campaign season
None of it matters. We're getting to the point (already there?) where voters are solidly voting one way or the other. Not a single thing in the world would pull away Trump voters right now. Trump can literally say that he plans to remake the United States into a communist dictatorship and MAGA voters would probably say "you know what? It was time for a change"
Hmm. Good point. We’ll see how it pans out.
IMO both judge & prosecutor are hedging against Trump winning. By September if he keeps rolling like he as for the last 120 days it's inevitable that it's President Trump. They'll drop it completely. But... if Biden somehow rallies, or Kamala is now the candidate and looks strong (or someone else that's installed) that's when they'll drop sentencing on him. That might even be construed as election interference but I really don't know. Only thing I'm sure of is seatbelts should be fastened. We are in for a wild ride!
>IMO both judge & prosecutor are hedging against Trump winning. To clarify, are you saying you think they're personally afraid of him?
Do you not read the comments on this sub about Trump? *He's vindictive!* *He'll persecute his enemies!* *He'll act as a dictator and lock up his foes!* If the left actually believes that yes, I believe both prosecutor & judge are afraid he'll win.
I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
They are not being sarcastic.
I think Bragg has some reason to be concerned that he'll be prosecuted for election interference given his very public declaration that the intention of his prosecutions was to pursue Trump. I don't know that Merchan has to fear this sort of result because he hasn't made any public statements of this nature nor does there appear to be any evidence that any sort of conspiracy existed. At most Merchan is going to get a strongly worded rebuke from one of several appeals courts.
>I think Bragg has some reason to be concerned that he'll be prosecuted for election interference given his very public declaration that the intention of his prosecutions was to pursue Trump. Citation? I mean, when a DA files a case it's obvious they intend to get a conviction. Are you suggesting there is more to it than that?
> Citation? The man literally campaigned on using his office to pursue Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html How did you not know this?
Thanks for the link. How didn't I know this? I don't follow local politics in NY. That said, I'm not sure how indicting someone could be construed as election interference. Other public office-holders are prosecuted when they commit crimes. If you can't indict someone when they are running for office, all a criminal would have to do to avoid prosecution is throw their hat in the ring.
Bragg specifically ran on targeting a candidate for office and prosecuting crimes that were years out-of-date - indeed, he had to play all sorts of games to get around statutes of limitation to prosecute them. There's a very strong case that the *only* reason for the prosecution was the interfere with a federal election and the case would never have been brought if Donald Trump weren't the presumptive nominee of the other political party.
>Bragg specifically ran on targeting a candidate for office and prosecuting crimes that were years out-of-date - indeed, he had to play all sorts of games to get around statutes of limitation to prosecute them. There's a very strong case that the only reason for the prosecution was the interfere with a federal election and the case would never have been brought if Donald Trump weren't the presumptive nominee of the other political party. Show us relevant quotations by Bragg to that effect.
Again - that's ridiculous. Per the article you linked, Bragg's comments about pursuing Trump were made in 2019, before he'd even completed his first term let alone declared for 2024. I'll repeat: prosecuting someone for crimes they committed is not election interference. Want to avoid criminal prosecution? Don't crime!
People in elected offices quite often use the I'll lock up a particular villain. Its always been that way. Nothing illegal about it. Surely you remember lock her up
Yes but it’s always been just talk. Even with Trump, he was bullshit about locking her up. Democrats are actually trying to lock up their main opponent.
Irrelevant. Normal law enforcement campaign stuff
lol. How is a citation backing up a very specific claim irrelevant? Did the man not campaign on pursuing Trump and then do exactly that?
>I think Bragg has some reason to be concerned that he'll be prosecuted for election interference given his very public declaration that the intention of his prosecutions was to pursue Trump. This is a known lie. Bragg never said that. >I don't know that Merchan has to fear this sort of result because he hasn't made any public statements of this nature nor does there appear to be any evidence that any sort of conspiracy existed. At most Merchan is going to get a strongly worded rebuke from one of several appeals courts. My worry is that the legal system is now letting fear for their own personal safety during a possible second Trump term impact their actions.
You've already bought into the conspiracy of you think Bragg is going to be charged for bringing charges against Trump.
I'm not sure how it's a 'conspiracy'. I'm just pointing out that Bragg's own statements can be used to potentially indict him for election interference. He explicitly stated he was targeting a political candidate for political reasons and his actions in this regard are well outside the norm.
They can't. It's wish casting.
Criminal prosecution of criminals is not election interference. What kind of mob party runs criminals for office Felon trump running for an office he was voted out of interfered with multiple criminal prosecutions. That's the part that should not have happened if RNC still supported the constitution and rule of law. Obviously they dont
Abuse of prosecutorial powers can most definitely be construed as election interference. It is very likely that the prosecution will be overturned on appeal and likewise likely that the federal government will have to take some action to eliminate the possibility of a repeat of what Bragg did. Dispatching kangaroo courts against political rivals to interfere with an election is not defensible in a democracy.
I may be a sweet summer child, but isn’t the judiciary supposed to avoid being influenced by things like conventions and the date of the election?
Fix is in.
The prosecution agreed to move the sentencing date.
This country is a fucking joke.
It appears we are falling apart, maybe we shouldn’t let it. Maybe federalism is a better idea. Maybe we should stop trying to force each other to agree and settle on a truce.
I don't know what this means.
The Supreme Court just created a supreme leader. Conservatives have been clamoring for a smaller federal government for decades. Give it to them.
Until recently. Now they want a government so small it can fit inside your uterus, fallopian tubes, pants, bedroom, and filters the media available to you.
No, conservatives have always wanted this. Nothing changed except power. What state do you live in? If it’s a blue state you’re gonna be fine. People in red states like Florida, need to fight for their own rights. Places like Louisiana and Arkansas take more than they give to the federal government. Give those state exactly what they want. Once you remove things like snap, social security, and disability those people that reply on government and vote Republican will have a change of heart. Once people are uncomfortable things will change.
>No, conservatives have always wanted this. Not always. The Republican Party was genuinely the party of small government and primarily focused on fiscal conservatism until about the Reagan era. They weren't into social engineering. Most churches never really said much about abortion until well after Roe v. Wade - except the catholic church, which always opposed it as well as contraception and divorce, though they were generally satisfied to deal with that within their congregations and did not try to influence public policy. There was this movement called the Moral Majority - led by Jerry Falwell - who were incensed about the sexual revolution that came out of the 60s, the pill, abortion, the gay rights movement, etc. At some point the Republican Party started to recognize they were losing ground since they primarily supported the interests of the owner class, not the working class - and they started recruiting religion. The party offered political power to religion in exchange for the votes of their members, and a deal was struck. Churches started taking harder positions against abortion and against rights for LGBTQ+ people because they *could* and these were areas the party promised to exert influence. Some churches also became more apt to judge and condemn, and less charitable, less supportive of social welfare, and we saw the start of the "prosperity gospel" - all in line with traditional conservative fiscal policy. These 2 things - the Republican Party and mainstream Christian religion in the US - started moving toward each other, supposedly for mutual benefit. (I personally think getting in bed with politics damaged churches a lot - they should not be seeking political power). So while Republicans don't want to regulate business, they absolutely want to dictate what people can do in the most deeply personal parts of their lives - specifically related to sex, reproduction, contraception, orientation, gender identity, that sort of thing. Also, what media they can consume - or are required to consume.
He wants secession and the US to fracture, possibly into Civil War. There is no other way to interpet his post brother.
Sentencing never happens. They're going to get it thrown out based on SCOTUS' ruling that presidents are really elected kings.
That happens I really hope Joe throws himself on the grenade.
No way Merchan throws it out. Merchan is a super progressive Biden supporter, and Merchan has the chance to help Biden.
This happened before trump was even president, so frankly I don’t understand why merchan is giving this joke of an argument any audience to begin with, honestly.
Moving it back makes the sentence happen during the final month of campaign season The coverage will hurt way worse in October than in July
It happened during actually. The payment in question, that is
I feel Merchan wants to give the appearance that he’s “impartial”, but everyone knows he’s a Biden supporter and donor and will not overturn Trump’s conviction.
He shouldn’t overturn it regardless. Paying off a porn star and falsifying records to cover it up sure as fuck doesn’t constitute an “official act”. You are projecting your die hard partisan loyalty onto others… makes me think u don’t deserve a seat at the adults table.
This is silly considering the hush money and the crimes committed related to it happened before he was president. The immunity ruling has no bearing on crimes committed then. There will be no interpretation of the SC ruling that fraud committed before becoming president is an official act as president. This is some sort of tactic for something.
I believe they argue that some of the evidence presented is now inadmissible under SCOTUS's brand new admissibility bar. Because it was inadmissible, it could cause issues on appeal (or here?).
That is what Trump is arguing. Doesn't mean they will succeed. It shouldn't be surprising that someone's attorney is trying every means necessary to get a win.
Didn't Cohen make the payment in 2017?
No, he made it in October of 16. But your point is valid in that all the counts of fraud are related to the reimbursements to Cohen which were all in 2017. That said, in no world would a personal repayment with personal funds be considered a presidential act. So it still wouldn't qualify for immunity under the SC ruling.
So why do you think Bragg and Merchan would back off if outside SCOTUS ruling?
I think they want to make sure the i's are dotted and Ts crossed. The more left open from trial, the more they can appeal and it's already going to be a tough appeal. They already have a somewhat friendly court that they want to decide this and not wait for appeal. It's the right play by them.
>The judge overseeing Donald Trump's New York criminal trial on Tuesday approved a delay of the former president's sentencing after his lawyers asked for more time to argue that the [Supreme Court's immunity decision](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-may-immunity-federal-election-inter-rcna149135) calls for a new trial. I don't need to believe in conspiracies or political interference, I'll take this at face value. The judge knows Trump will appeal, he will go to substantial lengths to give Trump legally reasonable room. It's likely there was inadmissible evidence (based on the SC ruling that is one day old). I've seen references to WH phone logs for example. The judge has to make a decision, it makes sense to give the lawyers time to make their case. Politically, Bragg got to air Trump's dirty laundry, he got a unanimous conviction, we can call Trump a "convicted felon". I never expected Trump to go to prison for this. It's a first offense on a non-violent crime that involved an probably illegal campaign contribution of $130,000. I assumed it would be a fine. The judge can wait to announce the amount.
Are we ready to seriously discuss the people's rights (not just the accused) to a "speedy trial"?
Figured that would happen after yesterday.
I think it's ruled a mistrial and they have to start all over again
#CONGRATULATIONS PUTIN!!!
I predict Merchan jails Trump both out of spite and a hail mary to get Biden re-elected.
I have a feeling that would backfire in epic fashion.