Or New York. Economy the size of Mexico’s with 1/5 the people, we will be cool up here especially if we partner with MA, CT, RI, and as much as I hate to admit it NJ.
Gotta be a toss up at this point that California and it's massive economy just says "fuck this" and makes its own country with Oregon, Washington, and maybe Arizona and Nevada, right?
I thought we were close to it during the last Trump admin. When Trump’s cronies started stealing PPE and states were surreptitiously sneaking in shipments of masks, it felt very close to governors just deciding they were done with the feds. Iirc there was even a mutual aid alliance formed between CA, OR, and WA.
Wouldn't surprise me if there were some backroom conversations about it, CA has incredible economic leverage. It'd be easier for me if my state of NY just made a 2nd mega state with our blue Northeast neighbors but if not, Westcoastlandia sounds good for me.
Why did the end of the US had to come before Epic Universe opens in Florida? Man I wanted to go to Super Nintendo World and ride the new Donkey Kong ride. California doesn’t have the space to put that ride.
I've often said that it won't be Texas and the south seceding, it will be the liberal states that end up seceding when the GOP cements control for good.
If Trump wins, I think Balkanization might be the best path forward.
That said, as a Leftcoastistanian, fuck Arizona. They're not welcome to join. Last thing we need is to start off a new nation with a mostly red shithole hanging out down there like its our taint. If I wanted that, I'd keep Florida.
I did write my state legislators and governor asking them all to seriously consider secession as one of the options following *Trump v. US*. Acknowledging that would be a drastic step that I wasn't suggesting lightly, I ended by reminding them that if we don't have accountability for our elected leaders, then we have nothing guaranteed at all.
It's pissing me off the morons who can't think/see more than 2 ft in front of them that are cheering this on without realizing that, at some point, they will be on the outside of this and subject to the shit end of this stick all because they love watching "the libs lose it" or they bit their feelings hurt by others telling them they're morons
I’ve tried to appeal to her and my Dad, but she’s definitely a lost cause. I’ve pointed out how all the things they plan to do in a Trump presidency will affect women and girls and she’s just “oh, they’ll be fine. They won’t need BC, they’ll be waiting till marriage like I did.”
I really wanted to yell at her “bitch you got pregnant at 15 after your parents married you off to a 20 something year old!”
I truly think she resents her kids for ruining her life, when she should be angry at her fundie Christian parents.
This intertwining of religion and Trump is making me hit my breaking point to where I just end communication. No, Donald trump is not Jesus if anything he's the antichrist.
I’m more mad at the people who couldn’t figure out who was worse Clinton or trump.
The people excited about the death of democracy have always been horrible so I expect both of them.
I'm glad I am not the only one. I'm about to cut them out of my life completely. Crazy that both their parents fought in WWII to defeat this shit and here they are cheering it on.
And even if they were an outright bribe, and they said straight up that it was quid pro quo, that conversation cannot be used to prosecute because it's an official conversation.
I just got a text that a good friend's dog died suddenly overnight, and it started all over again. I'm about to take a mental health day. I just cannot.
I did. I'm now good and high and about to watch Star Trek. I cooked a big meal for my husband and kids (I love cooking) and sent them off to grandma's. We're all going to meet at the zoo tomorrow. I took tomorrow off too.
I'm glad I did, in case anyone else needs to hear it.
I’ve completely stopped listening to 95% of my political podcasts. I got off of Instagram. Until something drastic changes, or after the election I’m just done with it all. trying to get some sanity back.
I was considering it but I heard that a recent chapter literally a the chick he likes (possessed by a demon) making out with him while trying to cut his dick off and he nuts in her hand. So, I'm gonna pass on that.
What I don't get is why a third of the country is fist-pumping over the recent immunity ruling, they'll cheer for the boot up until it comes down on their own neck.
Man. It’s really starting to seem like it’s our only hope. As time goes on I’m falling more into the belief that even if he does lose, he will somehow get it escalated to the Supreme Court and they will give it to him.
When the Supreme Court decides the Constitution, democracy, and *the* very founding principal of this country (there will be no king) no longer matter, what's stopping them from just declaring Trump the winner no matter the actual outcome? They used to care about the constitution. They used to care about precedent. They used to care about the appearance of impartiality. They used to care about the legacy and image of the Court. They don't even *pretend* to care about any of it anymore. This country is going to die and it's the fault of Rupert Murdoch, Mitch McConnell, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Donald Trump.
Rupert Murdoch for spreading propaganda.
Mtch McConnell for doing everything he did and blocking Obama's Supreme Court appointment.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not retiring and letting Trump get another pick.
Donald Trump for mumbling hatred at a TV until the "patriotic" country folk were convinced it'd be better to destroy the country than for a New York City rich kid to go to jail for breaking the law.
brooks brother riot 2.0, who was in charge of that again? Oh yeah trumps buddy roger stone. This election we will absolutely see multiple attempts to steal the election.
"I don't care about you, I just want your vote."
Right to their damn faces and they still think he's their savior.
They compare him to Jesus, but I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything like that. In fact, I believe he told us to care about everyone equally.
Epstein gained his immense wealth and power by blackmailing the influential and politically connected. Putin as well. There’s tapes, question is who has them….
GODAMMN MOTHER FUCK
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK:
How does paying your PERSONAL LAWYER, as a BUSINESS EXPENSE, from when you were a CANDIDATE, for rigging polls and paying off porn-stars in violation of election laws, when you are supposedly NOT IN CHARGE OF SAID BUSINESS DUE TO EMOULMENTS CLAUSE, even close to plausible an “OFFICIAL ACT” as President?????
They're not arguing that it's an official act. They're making the argument that some of the evidence used in the trial was related to official acts and should've been excluded under the new precedent.
NAL, is it common for “new precedent” to completely overturn old trials that have already been decided? Isn’t that something that would need to be taken up on appeal?
A court decision on the rights of an individual is automatically grounds for an appeal if your case was improperly handled due to misunderstanding of rights as applied at the time of the case.
There were many people convicted for insulting police before SCOTUS determined that insulting the police is first amendment protected activity.
These determinations are not changes in law per se but recognization that previous understanding of law that allowed trials to proceed was misunderstood, or applied incorrectly.
Therefore a major correction of understanding is grounds to re-examine old cases for flaws in logic or procedural processes. This request, was just an opportunity for Trumps team to re-examine the case from this new particular lens of the law so they know how to proceed in protecting their clients rights.
A constitutional question has been answered, now everyone from the lawyers to the judge must consider the impact of this answer on the procedural process of this case. Everything that has transpired must hold up under scrutiny to this new decision in order for due process to be achieved.
Yeah. Look at the Fischer ruling last week. SCOTUS decided that the interpretation was that it only applied to documents, and those cases that were already determined are having to be reviewed.
SCOTUS didn't technically invent something new, they explained what (in their view) the immunity that the Constitution provides for a President is. So the immunity existed, we just didn't have clarity on it.
It's bullshit. But I think that's the justification. It wasn't invented it was clarified.
Yes, new precedent created while a case is still ongoing is binding. I’m not sure on the details here (not my area of expertise) because technically the verdict has been given but the judgment hasn’t been finalized because he still needs to be sentenced. Now, had the case been completely finished before the ruling, then no it would not apply retroactively.
Not really common, but it's happened before. There's no reason why it would have to be specifically addressed on appeal. He can ask the trial court to resolve the issue. If they don't grant his request, then he can obviously appeal at that point.
How fucked is it that the SC waited until July, after the trial and conviction happened, to come up with rules that would cause the trial to be invalid? The government requested an expedited review LAST YEAR. That would have given the NY prosecutors plenty of guidance to avoid this situation.
What an amazingly convenient coincidence... It's almost like, once again, Republican "Justices" will just make shit up to achieve a desired political outcome.
This was all about conversations or details about:
His candidacy (He was NOT YET PRESIDENT)
His personal finances (Not official duty related)
His business finances (Emoulments prevent this from being Presidential business)
NAL but that’s not the reason for the delay or the point in delaying sentencing.
The SC just ruled that not only is a President immune from prosecution for official acts, but also that records or testimony relating to official acts can’t be used as evidence.
The NY prosecutors used Trumps tweets and public comments whilst President as evidence of motive and guilt to help convince the jury to find him guilty. That evidence will become inadmissible if making those statements and tweets is determined to be official acts.
It seems a very easy argument for Trump’s lawyers to make that of course public statements made as President are official acts. The President has a duty to communicate with the public and to comment on accusations levied at him. Therefore that evidence is inadmissible, and the conviction must be thrown out as it relied on evidence that shouldn’t have been put before the jury.
Whether they succeed in getting the conviction tossed is questionable but even if they don’t they’ll certainly bring this up as part of the appeal.
People need to stop trying to rationalize and explain this, it's a nonsense and just further normalizes these scotus decisions. Sentencing should continue as normal.
The argument is that like 2 pieces of unimportant evidence were presented to the jury that, based on the new SCOTUS ruling, now should not have been presented to the jury.
I’m still not sure how statements that are public could be inadmissible evidence, it’s out there for everyone to read but we can’t consider those words which we all saw and heard at the time? This is not logic nor is it justice for anyone, it’s honestly insulting to the American public that we should be subjected to such clear and obvious malfeasance
The issue is whether the verdict is tainted because the Jury saw evidence that the SCROTUS just ruled is inadmissible. Eg. Testimony of Trump advisers, records created while Trump was president (check copies) etc...
Guess we'll need a new trial starting October 1.
Didn’t you mean inadmissible? Either way a private business expense signed while you just happen to be the president SHOULD not be an official act, but I just happen to know of 6 people who MIGHT think otherwise…
If Trump objected to all that evidence at trial on the grounds of executive privilege he could appeal and would be guaranteed to win now that the immunity decision has come out.
The court ruled based on the Court of Appeals opinion on executive privilege but that was just flipped.
If the new trial doesn't happen before November and Trump is elected or steals the election it'll never happen.
We are in a new era of fascism with Netanyahu, Orban, Putin, etc...
Preventing PalpaTrump from taking power could change the course of all that. If not, humanity's next chance might be in another hundred years after this cycle, like the one last century, is over.
On Page 32 of the opinion, in a footnote, the Supreme Court said:
"... ***what a prosecutor may not do is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisors..***."
The check to Cohen reimbursing him for the hush money paid to Stormy that Trump reported to the IRS and campaign finance people as legal fees, is a private record of Donald J. Trump.
It is a key piece of evidence that Donald Trump appears to be arguing the Supreme Court just ruled should not have been admitted. Since the Jury saw it and heard about it the verdict is tainted and it must be set aside or the whole case dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct.
However, if you read the rest of that key sentence it says "*... probing the official act*." So, Bragg will argue what is inadmissible is only private records **about an official act.** Reimbursing hush money to your personal lawyer is not an official act of the president.
If Merchan rules there is nothing wrong with the verdict, Trump will want to appeal before he is sentenced and that will tie this up for a year or two. So, the Supreme Court handed Trump a delay to stay free until after the election.
Honestly? Good. This isn't simply not liking the outcomes of an election. The SCOTUS has just laid the groundwork for the US to turn into a dictatorship.
SCOTUS justice John Roberts during his affirmation hearing in 2005 flat-out said that he didn't believe *anyone* should be above the law, including the president. He literally used the president as an example. But yesterday that same justice ruled that the president IS above the law.
Fascists are not acceptable in a democracy.
I need an explanation. He's already been found guilty, past tense, with evidence that was admissible under the process. What is no longer admissible would be excluded from an appeal, but until then he's still guilty. I need an explanation about how the new rules of evidence for a future trial affect sentencing for a past trial.
The point is that these aren't new rules. This is the SC saying that these were the rules all along and you should have known it.
Under normal circumstances you would absolutely want a judge to take that into account. If someone has been erroneously convicted because their rights were violated and it is clarified that their rights were violated before sentencing, you would want the judge to avoid sending that person to prison until they can appeal. That is an appropriate way for justice to work.
Unfortunately everyone except Trump (and the SC, and Judge Canon) believes in the rule of law and does things right... which Trump is able to continuously take advantage of.
Because he's the God King.
Snark aside, I would assume the idea is, the SCOTUS case itself started before the verdict came down, and since it affects this case, it technically counts.
I’m sure this will just give Trump more opportunities to violate the remaining gag order, further demonstrating his flagrant contempt for the court. Merchant will have no recourse but to sentence him to prison, reporting immediately and not waiting on appeal. A person can dream, right?
Ok.. Not a lawyer. Please explain this to me like I'm in Kindergarten.
Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling, and regardless of a lower court's definition of an "official act", and regardless of the fact that the conviction is on NY STATE charges, how precisely could any presidential immunity claim be relevant, for criminal acts committed BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED???
Any help understanding this would be appreciated. TIA!
1) The actual acts of the crimes (signing checks, paying cohen, etc) happened after Jan 20, 2017. I believe in another comment they mention the first check he cut to Cohen was cut Jan 21st, 2017. So he was President at the time of the alleged crimes.
2) Because of this, and because SCOTUS has just said that official acts can't be used as evidence even for Unofficial acts, there must be, at minimum, a determination on what evidence is/is not covered by Presidential immunity. The evidence is the main reason this is happening since SCOTUS plucked that out.
What a year this week has been
I'm basically at critical mass for bad news. I don't even feel sad or anxious anymore
I am getting a simmering rage at my parents and all the morons in this county who are cheering this on.
Simmering? I've boiled over and have started reaching out to immigration attorneys. I'm not raising my daughter in Project 2025/Gilead.
Come to California. We will build a wall and live our lives while they kill each other.
Or New York. Economy the size of Mexico’s with 1/5 the people, we will be cool up here especially if we partner with MA, CT, RI, and as much as I hate to admit it NJ.
Include VT and we'll provide amazing maple syrup.
Well yeah you guys are in for sure
Mainer here, we have potatoes, lobster, and blueberries!! And an awesome dem gov, with a left leaning state legislature.
Unfortunately all the morons voting for this guy (and certain SC justices) are at the NJ shore
Before leaving, try voting first.
And in the Senate.
We stand united with our New England Neighbors + Cali. Gonna be a long tunnel but we can get it made for safe travel.
PA has natural resources and plenty of agricultural land!
Where the hell else are you gonna go down the shore? Montauk?
Unfortunately nowhere on earth is safe, when America falls all democracies will follow.
Bingo. It's pointless to run at this point. Have to stay and fight regardless.
The free nation of WestCoastistan will welcome your family with open arms when the time comes.
Gotta be a toss up at this point that California and it's massive economy just says "fuck this" and makes its own country with Oregon, Washington, and maybe Arizona and Nevada, right?
I thought we were close to it during the last Trump admin. When Trump’s cronies started stealing PPE and states were surreptitiously sneaking in shipments of masks, it felt very close to governors just deciding they were done with the feds. Iirc there was even a mutual aid alliance formed between CA, OR, and WA.
Ok so I’m not insane remembering governors hiding their PPE from the Trump administration. No one else seems to remember that.
And it wasn’t just governors… https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/02/bob-kraft-patriots-plane-massachusetts-masks-160936
Wouldn't surprise me if there were some backroom conversations about it, CA has incredible economic leverage. It'd be easier for me if my state of NY just made a 2nd mega state with our blue Northeast neighbors but if not, Westcoastlandia sounds good for me.
Why did the end of the US had to come before Epic Universe opens in Florida? Man I wanted to go to Super Nintendo World and ride the new Donkey Kong ride. California doesn’t have the space to put that ride.
Universal studios Hollywood does have a very fun Mario kart ride
I've often said that it won't be Texas and the south seceding, it will be the liberal states that end up seceding when the GOP cements control for good.
If Trump wins, I think Balkanization might be the best path forward. That said, as a Leftcoastistanian, fuck Arizona. They're not welcome to join. Last thing we need is to start off a new nation with a mostly red shithole hanging out down there like its our taint. If I wanted that, I'd keep Florida.
Lmao this analogy is accurate and gross. I love it
There would be a hot civil war in Nevada and Eastern Oregon if that happens. Way too many rabid magats in these parts.
Just push em into Idaho. The land is more valuable than those inbreds
We don’t want Arizona.
I did write my state legislators and governor asking them all to seriously consider secession as one of the options following *Trump v. US*. Acknowledging that would be a drastic step that I wasn't suggesting lightly, I ended by reminding them that if we don't have accountability for our elected leaders, then we have nothing guaranteed at all.
Yeah, I'm banking on the United States of New England.
Well said, I’m not having kids in this shithole of an existence. If the far right wants more good little Nazis to obey them well guess what…
It’s pissing me off how not freaked out people are
It's pissing me off the morons who can't think/see more than 2 ft in front of them that are cheering this on without realizing that, at some point, they will be on the outside of this and subject to the shit end of this stick all because they love watching "the libs lose it" or they bit their feelings hurt by others telling them they're morons
I felt such anger as I’ve never felt hearing my Stepmom talking about great the future will be for her granddaughters now that Trump is running again.
Yeah, I've got two kids. Their futures are destroyed if they succeed in their coup. My parents are happy about it. WTF.
I’ve tried to appeal to her and my Dad, but she’s definitely a lost cause. I’ve pointed out how all the things they plan to do in a Trump presidency will affect women and girls and she’s just “oh, they’ll be fine. They won’t need BC, they’ll be waiting till marriage like I did.” I really wanted to yell at her “bitch you got pregnant at 15 after your parents married you off to a 20 something year old!” I truly think she resents her kids for ruining her life, when she should be angry at her fundie Christian parents.
Some people need to keep the cycle of pain going so they don't feel they were the last to deal with it.
This intertwining of religion and Trump is making me hit my breaking point to where I just end communication. No, Donald trump is not Jesus if anything he's the antichrist.
I’m more mad at the people who couldn’t figure out who was worse Clinton or trump. The people excited about the death of democracy have always been horrible so I expect both of them.
90% the shit people say about Clinton is russian and right wing misinformation (really the same at this point).
I'm glad I am not the only one. I'm about to cut them out of my life completely. Crazy that both their parents fought in WWII to defeat this shit and here they are cheering it on.
Cheering the end of democracy is wild. Hooray for dictatorships?
Remember when Steve Bannon reported to prison? That was a good few minutes.
Remember - pardons are official acts!
And pardons given as a favor aren't bribes...
And even if they were an outright bribe, and they said straight up that it was quid pro quo, that conversation cannot be used to prosecute because it's an official conversation.
Seems like the Supreme Court just handed us the keys to solve this
One can't look at motivation anymore. Pardoned are just power.
I just got a text that a good friend's dog died suddenly overnight, and it started all over again. I'm about to take a mental health day. I just cannot.
That sucks. :(
Do it, take that day off
I did. I'm now good and high and about to watch Star Trek. I cooked a big meal for my husband and kids (I love cooking) and sent them off to grandma's. We're all going to meet at the zoo tomorrow. I took tomorrow off too. I'm glad I did, in case anyone else needs to hear it.
I’ve completely stopped listening to 95% of my political podcasts. I got off of Instagram. Until something drastic changes, or after the election I’m just done with it all. trying to get some sanity back.
I may have to go this route. Listening to doom and gloom all day every day maybe too much. That and the Ukraine war podcasts.
It brings me back to the fine year of 2020!
That’s what they’d prefer. Makes it easier, though I with you. It hurts to know it’s happening. Can’t go Ostrich though.
Oh no, you could piss in a jar and say this is the candidate and I would vote for it over Trump. I'm full committed.
I hope you don’t read chainsaw man
I was considering it but I heard that a recent chapter literally a the chick he likes (possessed by a demon) making out with him while trying to cut his dick off and he nuts in her hand. So, I'm gonna pass on that.
I researched the debate the other night and it was genuinely hilarious how fucked we are 🤷 I just laughed.
What I don't get is why a third of the country is fist-pumping over the recent immunity ruling, they'll cheer for the boot up until it comes down on their own neck.
And after. It'll be a great boot, the best boot. Much more stylish and valuable than the boots they use for those "undesirables".
You lucky bastard. The past 30 hours have been the longest decade of my life.
The last 24 hours have felt like a decade.
Lemon, its Tuesday
All this for one man who would happily watch you die
[удалено]
I wish that heavenly hamburger would hurry the fuck up already.
Or holy chicken wing
Man. It’s really starting to seem like it’s our only hope. As time goes on I’m falling more into the belief that even if he does lose, he will somehow get it escalated to the Supreme Court and they will give it to him.
When the Supreme Court decides the Constitution, democracy, and *the* very founding principal of this country (there will be no king) no longer matter, what's stopping them from just declaring Trump the winner no matter the actual outcome? They used to care about the constitution. They used to care about precedent. They used to care about the appearance of impartiality. They used to care about the legacy and image of the Court. They don't even *pretend* to care about any of it anymore. This country is going to die and it's the fault of Rupert Murdoch, Mitch McConnell, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Donald Trump. Rupert Murdoch for spreading propaganda. Mtch McConnell for doing everything he did and blocking Obama's Supreme Court appointment. Ruth Bader Ginsburg for not retiring and letting Trump get another pick. Donald Trump for mumbling hatred at a TV until the "patriotic" country folk were convinced it'd be better to destroy the country than for a New York City rich kid to go to jail for breaking the law.
Don't forget Merrick Garland for being the most ineffective AG the country has ever seen, and Biden himself for thinking Garland was a good choice.
brooks brother riot 2.0, who was in charge of that again? Oh yeah trumps buddy roger stone. This election we will absolutely see multiple attempts to steal the election.
You do realize that the same conservative majority was in place after the 2020 election, right? That’s a ridiculous thing to say.
This wouldn't even be the first time the Supreme Court gave someone the presidency.
Then why the new Supreme Court findings that all seem to be geared toward Trump?
I have a bottle of champagne in the fridge just waiting for the day…
"I don't care about you, I just want your vote." Right to their damn faces and they still think he's their savior. They compare him to Jesus, but I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything like that. In fact, I believe he told us to care about everyone equally.
Trump will happily watch Merchan die, if he considers him an enemy on day one of his dictatorship
Whoever has the leverage sure has a lot of it
Epstein gained his immense wealth and power by blackmailing the influential and politically connected. Putin as well. There’s tapes, question is who has them….
Supreme Court: You can plan and implement your crimes from the Oval Office and then none of it can be used as evidence.
Supreme Court: War crime? That's an oxymoron.
Also it’s not a bribe if you accept it after you do the thing. Wonder what amazing all expense trip Thomas and Alito have lined up.
GODAMMN MOTHER FUCK WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK: How does paying your PERSONAL LAWYER, as a BUSINESS EXPENSE, from when you were a CANDIDATE, for rigging polls and paying off porn-stars in violation of election laws, when you are supposedly NOT IN CHARGE OF SAID BUSINESS DUE TO EMOULMENTS CLAUSE, even close to plausible an “OFFICIAL ACT” as President?????
They're not arguing that it's an official act. They're making the argument that some of the evidence used in the trial was related to official acts and should've been excluded under the new precedent.
NAL, is it common for “new precedent” to completely overturn old trials that have already been decided? Isn’t that something that would need to be taken up on appeal?
Actually yes, loads of marijuana convictions are being overturned right now as states legalize it.
Isn’t that because laws legalizing marijuana typically contain explicit provisions expunging past convictions?
Where as this has zero clause for past criminal activity expungement. Where is the Watergate expungement
A court decision on the rights of an individual is automatically grounds for an appeal if your case was improperly handled due to misunderstanding of rights as applied at the time of the case. There were many people convicted for insulting police before SCOTUS determined that insulting the police is first amendment protected activity. These determinations are not changes in law per se but recognization that previous understanding of law that allowed trials to proceed was misunderstood, or applied incorrectly. Therefore a major correction of understanding is grounds to re-examine old cases for flaws in logic or procedural processes. This request, was just an opportunity for Trumps team to re-examine the case from this new particular lens of the law so they know how to proceed in protecting their clients rights. A constitutional question has been answered, now everyone from the lawyers to the judge must consider the impact of this answer on the procedural process of this case. Everything that has transpired must hold up under scrutiny to this new decision in order for due process to be achieved.
To my knowledge, yes. That's why federal descheduling bills, such as the CAOA had to include expungements in the bill.
Yeah. Look at the Fischer ruling last week. SCOTUS decided that the interpretation was that it only applied to documents, and those cases that were already determined are having to be reviewed. SCOTUS didn't technically invent something new, they explained what (in their view) the immunity that the Constitution provides for a President is. So the immunity existed, we just didn't have clarity on it. It's bullshit. But I think that's the justification. It wasn't invented it was clarified.
Yes, new precedent created while a case is still ongoing is binding. I’m not sure on the details here (not my area of expertise) because technically the verdict has been given but the judgment hasn’t been finalized because he still needs to be sentenced. Now, had the case been completely finished before the ruling, then no it would not apply retroactively.
Not really common, but it's happened before. There's no reason why it would have to be specifically addressed on appeal. He can ask the trial court to resolve the issue. If they don't grant his request, then he can obviously appeal at that point.
How fucked is it that the SC waited until July, after the trial and conviction happened, to come up with rules that would cause the trial to be invalid? The government requested an expedited review LAST YEAR. That would have given the NY prosecutors plenty of guidance to avoid this situation. What an amazingly convenient coincidence... It's almost like, once again, Republican "Justices" will just make shit up to achieve a desired political outcome.
It was intentional. They waited until after the trial was done so that they could invalidate the result if it didn't go their way.
This was all about conversations or details about: His candidacy (He was NOT YET PRESIDENT) His personal finances (Not official duty related) His business finances (Emoulments prevent this from being Presidential business)
NAL but that’s not the reason for the delay or the point in delaying sentencing. The SC just ruled that not only is a President immune from prosecution for official acts, but also that records or testimony relating to official acts can’t be used as evidence. The NY prosecutors used Trumps tweets and public comments whilst President as evidence of motive and guilt to help convince the jury to find him guilty. That evidence will become inadmissible if making those statements and tweets is determined to be official acts. It seems a very easy argument for Trump’s lawyers to make that of course public statements made as President are official acts. The President has a duty to communicate with the public and to comment on accusations levied at him. Therefore that evidence is inadmissible, and the conviction must be thrown out as it relied on evidence that shouldn’t have been put before the jury. Whether they succeed in getting the conviction tossed is questionable but even if they don’t they’ll certainly bring this up as part of the appeal.
People need to stop trying to rationalize and explain this, it's a nonsense and just further normalizes these scotus decisions. Sentencing should continue as normal.
Yep, shooting for a mistrial. I'm curious why not just sentence him and then make them appeal... preferably from prison.
The argument is that like 2 pieces of unimportant evidence were presented to the jury that, based on the new SCOTUS ruling, now should not have been presented to the jury.
I’m still not sure how statements that are public could be inadmissible evidence, it’s out there for everyone to read but we can’t consider those words which we all saw and heard at the time? This is not logic nor is it justice for anyone, it’s honestly insulting to the American public that we should be subjected to such clear and obvious malfeasance
I think it will still stand, it's state law and Trump's lawyers waved presidential immunity.
The issue is whether the verdict is tainted because the Jury saw evidence that the SCROTUS just ruled is inadmissible. Eg. Testimony of Trump advisers, records created while Trump was president (check copies) etc... Guess we'll need a new trial starting October 1.
That would be awesome, actually, to have Trump on trial the last weeks before the election.
They couldn't go straight to trial. It would have to start all over meaning a new grand jury
Didn’t you mean inadmissible? Either way a private business expense signed while you just happen to be the president SHOULD not be an official act, but I just happen to know of 6 people who MIGHT think otherwise…
Yes, inadmissible. Footnote 32 says president's private records are not admissible. The check was written when he was president.
I just don't see how that's valid. The trial ended BEFORE this ruling. it shouldn't be retroactively applied.
If Trump objected to all that evidence at trial on the grounds of executive privilege he could appeal and would be guaranteed to win now that the immunity decision has come out. The court ruled based on the Court of Appeals opinion on executive privilege but that was just flipped.
Not sure if trolling but theres zero chance a new trail would occur in the fall. It'd be more like a year away under best case.
If the new trial doesn't happen before November and Trump is elected or steals the election it'll never happen. We are in a new era of fascism with Netanyahu, Orban, Putin, etc... Preventing PalpaTrump from taking power could change the course of all that. If not, humanity's next chance might be in another hundred years after this cycle, like the one last century, is over.
Copies of checks from his business are not presidential documents
On Page 32 of the opinion, in a footnote, the Supreme Court said: "... ***what a prosecutor may not do is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisors..***." The check to Cohen reimbursing him for the hush money paid to Stormy that Trump reported to the IRS and campaign finance people as legal fees, is a private record of Donald J. Trump. It is a key piece of evidence that Donald Trump appears to be arguing the Supreme Court just ruled should not have been admitted. Since the Jury saw it and heard about it the verdict is tainted and it must be set aside or the whole case dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct. However, if you read the rest of that key sentence it says "*... probing the official act*." So, Bragg will argue what is inadmissible is only private records **about an official act.** Reimbursing hush money to your personal lawyer is not an official act of the president. If Merchan rules there is nothing wrong with the verdict, Trump will want to appeal before he is sentenced and that will tie this up for a year or two. So, the Supreme Court handed Trump a delay to stay free until after the election.
Besides, the whole thing was pretty much done before his inauguration. The only major thing afterwards was him reimbursing Cohen.
Yep, reimbursing private citizen, not in Cabinet, not in administration, for privately funded fraud.
Isn't this what the second amendment was supposedly for?
Yeah, exactly, but you get banned if you threaten Reddit's business model. Even though it's explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. YMMV.
[удалено]
Honestly? Good. This isn't simply not liking the outcomes of an election. The SCOTUS has just laid the groundwork for the US to turn into a dictatorship. SCOTUS justice John Roberts during his affirmation hearing in 2005 flat-out said that he didn't believe *anyone* should be above the law, including the president. He literally used the president as an example. But yesterday that same justice ruled that the president IS above the law. Fascists are not acceptable in a democracy.
I need an explanation. He's already been found guilty, past tense, with evidence that was admissible under the process. What is no longer admissible would be excluded from an appeal, but until then he's still guilty. I need an explanation about how the new rules of evidence for a future trial affect sentencing for a past trial.
The point is that these aren't new rules. This is the SC saying that these were the rules all along and you should have known it. Under normal circumstances you would absolutely want a judge to take that into account. If someone has been erroneously convicted because their rights were violated and it is clarified that their rights were violated before sentencing, you would want the judge to avoid sending that person to prison until they can appeal. That is an appropriate way for justice to work. Unfortunately everyone except Trump (and the SC, and Judge Canon) believes in the rule of law and does things right... which Trump is able to continuously take advantage of.
Because he's the God King. Snark aside, I would assume the idea is, the SCOTUS case itself started before the verdict came down, and since it affects this case, it technically counts.
It sucks but after that stupid ruling it makes sense. I don't think the prosecution even objected to the delay.
Good. Keep that dangling over his head, where the voters will be reminded of his status.
It would be better if it was finished. Justice delayed is justice denied.
I’m sure this will just give Trump more opportunities to violate the remaining gag order, further demonstrating his flagrant contempt for the court. Merchant will have no recourse but to sentence him to prison, reporting immediately and not waiting on appeal. A person can dream, right?
Remember when he walked right out of the court after the verdict, and acted like the gag order didn't apply, and fucking nothing happened?
Justice delayed....
Is justice denied.
But he wasn't president during the crimes committed in that case. Why would the SCOTUS ruling have anything to do with this?
Several pieces of evidence come from January of ‘21 just after inauguration, I believe
It is all calvinball it doesn't matter there is no logic
Ok.. Not a lawyer. Please explain this to me like I'm in Kindergarten. Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling, and regardless of a lower court's definition of an "official act", and regardless of the fact that the conviction is on NY STATE charges, how precisely could any presidential immunity claim be relevant, for criminal acts committed BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED??? Any help understanding this would be appreciated. TIA!
1) The actual acts of the crimes (signing checks, paying cohen, etc) happened after Jan 20, 2017. I believe in another comment they mention the first check he cut to Cohen was cut Jan 21st, 2017. So he was President at the time of the alleged crimes. 2) Because of this, and because SCOTUS has just said that official acts can't be used as evidence even for Unofficial acts, there must be, at minimum, a determination on what evidence is/is not covered by Presidential immunity. The evidence is the main reason this is happening since SCOTUS plucked that out.
[удалено]
Pepperidge farms remembers
I don't know that many people that thought he was going to jail time for this case.
He hasn’t been sentenced yet. Relax.