Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) ❤
No. of Recommendations: 4
Trump is still due in NY state court on Tuesday for the next steps in his felony conviction there. Merchan is going to rule on the application of the USSC law-makaing*** regarding presidential immunity. Since virtually everything related to the case happened before Trump took office in 2016, there is little application. However, there was one conversation between Hicks and Trump that did happen in the White House and is arguably immune.
While that may have been what tipped off the illegal scheme, and it was introduced in court (**before** the USSC ruling, so no error at the time), there is so much other evidence that is acceptable under the new USSC law that I expect the judge to rule that it doesn't affect the outcome.
Although the next step should be sentencing later this month, the inevitable appeal of this ruling by Trump will delay that. I expect Trump will not only appeal, but he will ask the appellate court to delay everything until after he leaves office. And I do mean everything - they won't even make an argument for an error in the ruling. The claim will be that as President-elect he is already shielded from prosecution by the office. It will be nothing more than further delay based on his election.
That much I'm reasonably sure of. What happens after that is a bit murkier.
Will the appeals court buy that argument? I don't know. There's certainly no love lost between Trump and the New York state courts. So I don't expect them to simply rubber stamp his request. But will they find it persuasive? I don't think they should. So what if they don't find it persuasive? What if they remind him that he's not President yet and does not yet get deference that the office affords? Will they give him time to actually argue his appeal? Will they deny it outright for lack of argument?
I suppose that means things don't actually get interesting on Tuesday. The really interesting stuff won't happen for a week or two.
--Peter
***Yes, I am going to derisively use "law making" and "law" here, as that is what the court has done - make law, not interpret it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
This makes me wonder: is there anything Trump could do between now and his swearing in that would disqualify him from assuming office? Taking in massive "donations" from foreign heads of state? Killing members of congress or the media? Anything? I assume there's nothing in the Constitution about this.
No. of Recommendations: 4
This makes me wonder: is there anything Trump could do between now and his swearing in that would disqualify him from assuming office?
He could die.
No. of Recommendations: 4
This makes me wonder: is there anything Trump could do between now and his swearing in that would disqualify him from assuming office? Taking in massive "donations" from foreign heads of state? Killing members of congress or the media? Anything? I assume there's nothing in the Constitution about this.
No. I mean, other than if he were to pass away, as suggested above.
The person who wins the election is the one who gets to be sworn in as President. That basic fact doesn't change, no matter who wins.
No. of Recommendations: 1
This makes me wonder: is there anything Trump could do between now and his swearing in that would disqualify him from assuming office?
No. Nothing. He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue. Nothing.
No. of Recommendations: 2
i can think of nothing trump could do without an escape via :
- it was an accident
- it was a deepfake
that's all MAGA needs to hear, even if its a mass shooting.
as pointed out before for trump, there does not seem any crime so blatant that even the most incompetent lawyer is unable to trigger delay of a few months. (and a few years already seems a minimum)
No. of Recommendations: 12
Well, looks like I should have checked for a door number 3.
The Manhattan DA's office chose to ask for more time to consider the impact of the election on the proceeding. And of course Trump agreed. So it's all off for a week, with responses to the question of how the election impacts things due from both sides by Nov 19. No word on if the judge will issue his ruling on presidential immunity that day or delay it until later. And no word on the sentencing, which is still scheduled for Nov 26.
As a non-lawyer and citizen, it annoys me that the judge is putting off his ruling. I don't see how the election could have any impact on this ruling. Make your ruling and then toss that into the pile of things the parties need to respond to regarding the election.
It's often been said that justice delayed is justice denied. Justice is certainly being denied here.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
As a non-lawyer and citizen, it annoys me that the judge is putting off his ruling. I don't see how the election could have any impact on this ruling. Make your ruling and then toss that into the pile of things the parties need to respond to regarding the election.
Generally speaking, if a party requests the opportunity to make a legal argument, due process means listening to that argument before rejecting it.
Courts will require parties to make their arguments in a timely fashion, of course. But if a significant event occurs that neither party has previously had an opportunity to fully brief, it's pretty much basic due process to give a party the chance to argue that it has an impact on the case. In this case, since both parties agreed that the defendant becoming the President-elect was a significant event, it would have probably been a denial of due process not to give the parties a week to brief the issue.
No. of Recommendations: 16
Generally speaking, if a party requests the opportunity to make a legal argument, due process means listening to that argument before rejecting it.
Sure. But how many times do you have to listen to the same request with different arguments?
Dismiss before trial because the evidence is insufficient. Denied.
Dismiss before trial because I'm running for office. Denied.
Dismiss during trial because someone did something. Denied.
Dismiss after both sides rest and before the jury verdict because the evidence was insufficient. Denied.
Dismiss after the verdict because the jury erred in their verdict. Denied.
Dismiss after the verdict because I'm further along in the process of running for office. Denied.
Dismiss after the verdict because the USSC made some ruling. Waiting on this one.
Dismiss after the verdict because I won the election. Just made today.
At what point does this become a vexatious litigant? At what point does the judge hold you (or your counsel) in contempt for making frivolous arguments and/or motions?
Yes, you need to listen to arguments. But if you don't cut off arguments at some point, they will go on forever and you'll never close the case.
--Peter
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sure. But how many times do you have to listen to the same request with different arguments?
Several times. It is routine beyond belief for the defense to argue that they should win the case at each point in the trial at which they are permitted to request such relief. This is Criminal Procedure 101. Every defendant can (if they choose) move to dismiss at the very beginning based on the charging documents, to dismiss at any time during the pre-trial phase based on legal arguments, dismiss after the evidence is set because it is allegedly insufficient, during the trial because of alleged errors, after trial but before jury verdict (motion for directed verdict), after the trial based on arguments the jury was wrong, and probably a dozen more that I've missed because I'm not a criminal lawyer.
This is just basic stuff. None of it is dilatory, or even vexatious. It's just basic professional responsibility. If you don't move to dismiss the charges at the right time, you might end up having waived any argument that the charges should have been dismissed at that time - so competent defense counsel will ask for the charges to be dropped at each stage.
Obviously that means you can cut off arguments. If the argument should have been raised earlier, then you can tell the defense they should have raised it earlier, so they can't raise it now. But that's a big part of the reason, of course, that they raise arguments at every stage in the trial - because they'd much rather be told by the judge that they raised it too early than too late.
Here, a Big Thing has happened that is a novel event - not just in the trial, but in history. Defense could not have raised any arguments predicated on Trump being the President-elect any earlier....because he wasn't President-elect until this past week. So, yeah....they're going to get a week to draft their arguments, so that the appellate court doesn't just punt it back down to trial court on appeal saying that the trial court should have considered their argument first.
Albaby
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's often been said that justice delayed is justice denied. Justice is certainly being denied here.
Perhaps the biggest cause of all this denied justice is Merrick Garland's failure to appoint a special prosecutor at least a year before he actually did. I think Garland was Biden's worst decision as president, motivated perhaps by a desire to give Garland a consolation prize after being denied a Supreme Court seat by Mitch McConnell. Though now I have to wonder if Garland would have been any more competent on the court than he has been as AG, though he'd certainly at least be on the liberal side.
No. of Recommendations: 9
It's often been said that justice delayed is justice denied. Justice is certainly being denied here.One more follow up.
Manhattan DA has agreed to put the whole case on ice for 4+ years while Trump is President. No decision on immunity. No sentencing.
But we don't have a two-tiered justice system. All are equal under the law.
Bullshit.
https://abc7ny.com/post/manhattan-district-attorne...The only thing that will restore my faith in the US justice system is the Secret Service whisking Trump away after the inauguration ceremony on Jan 20, 2029, and delivering him to Rikers Island because his bond has been revoked.
--Peter
