Always treat others with respect and kindness, even if you disagree with them. Avoid making personal attacks or insulting others, and try to maintain a civil and constructive tone in your discussions.
- Manlobbi
Investment Strategies / Falling Knives
No. of Recommendations: 1
ok, this makes no sense per scotus immunity ruling.
crimes occurred prior to election, so unofficial act, not to mention the act itself.
trump discussed\lied about the act while president, so utilizing documentation of such (even if by even the criminal's lawyers) tanks the whole thing?
that means in a second term, trump will spend a lot more time boasting publicly about all the things he has done, may have done, and someday may do!
[scotus 2025 : extends trump's immunity to smallpox and the common cold]
No. of Recommendations: 4
ok, this makes no sense per scotus immunity ruling.
crimes occurred prior to election, so unofficial act, not to mention the act itself.
trump discussed\lied about the act while president, so utilizing documentation of such (even if by even the criminal's lawyers) tanks the whole thing?
It doesn't tank the whole thing - because, as you point out, immunity does not attach to acts that were taken before Trump became President.
However, Trump has immunity for various acts he took as President. For acts to which immunity attaches, discussions and conversations and documents that would provide the motives or reasoning behind those acts is not admissible at trial. And those acts themselves cannot be used as evidence to prove other crimes.
Trump is arguing not that the actions taken prior to his being elected are immune, but that some of the evidence that was used in his trial (some witness testimony and evidence compiled as part of ethics reviews, IIRC) should have been excluded.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Trump is arguing not that the actions taken prior to his being elected are immune, but that some of the evidence that was used in his trial (some witness testimony and evidence compiled as part of ethics reviews, IIRC) should have been excluded
Which is why many are suspicious of the breadth of the SCOTUS decision because it provided cover and immunity. And it needs to be clarified if the President ordering a clearly illegal act by the DOJ or the Military, that doesn't benefit the USA, and clearly benefits him personally is immune.
No. of Recommendations: 2
i still dont get what this delay can 'fix'.
if the judge does anything substantial, like throw out certain verdicts, it will open up further delays via defense tactics.
or maybe that is inevitable anyway, so one might as well slap max sentencing down on trump ASAP.
doubt anyone sensible thinks trump goes to prison on any of this, thus the success of MAGA fundraising on this case.
No. of Recommendations: 5
i still dont get what this delay can 'fix'.
if the judge does anything substantial, like throw out certain verdicts, it will open up further delays via defense tactics.
or maybe that is inevitable anyway, so one might as well slap max sentencing down on trump ASAP.
The judge is supposed to do his best to make correct decisions.
The defense has filed a motion to set aside the verdict based on the SCOTUS decision. The judge's role is to consider that motion seriously, on the merits, like any and every other motion filed in the court. Not just conclude that he "might as well" just impose a sentence on the defendant ASAP because the defense will inevitably raise these on appeal. If the defense has legitimately raised a valid reason for setting aside the verdict based on the SCOTUS' ruling on immunity - which was timely raised by the defense early in the case in objecting to certain evidence - then the judge has to consider that.
The purpose of the delay is to give both the defense and the prosecution time to analyze the SCOTUS decision, which all sides would agree broke some new ground on the law governing immunity, and to make their legal arguments to the court. Even if the judge ultimately rules that no relief is appropriate under the SCOTUS ruling, basic due process means that the defendant has the right to make their argument. The judge could have set a much shorter timeframe, and even forced the defense to make their arguments within normal post-trial deadlines - but the prosecution had no objection to the delay, so there's no reason not to grant it.
