- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Trump Moves to Overturn Manhattan Conviction, Citing Immunity Decision
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:43 pm
LINK
quote:
Donald J. Trump began an effort on Monday to throw out his recent criminal conviction in Manhattan and postpone his upcoming sentencing, citing a new Supreme Court ruling that granted him broad immunity from prosecution for official actions he took as president, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
In a letter to the judge overseeing the case, Mr. Trump’s lawyers sought permission to file a motion to set aside the verdict, doing so just hours after the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling involving one of Mr. Trump’s other criminal cases. The letter will not be public until Tuesday at the earliest, after which prosecutors will have a chance to respond.
The move from Mr. Trump’s lawyers came 10 days before the judge was set to sentence the former president for his crimes in Manhattan, where a jury convicted him on 34 felony counts related to his cover-up of a sex scandal in the run-up to the 2016 election. Mr. Trump’s lawyers asked the judge, Juan M. Merchan, to postpone the July 11 sentencing while the judge weighs whether the Supreme Court ruling affects the conviction.
The effort to set aside the conviction might be a long shot. The Manhattan case centers on acts Mr. Trump took as a candidate, not a president.
Yet his lawyers are likely to argue that prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only may not charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations.
It is unclear how the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which brought the case, will respond, or whether the judge will delay the first sentencing of an American president. But Mr. Trump’s effort appeared to cause at least a brief interruption: The district attorney’s office did not on Monday make a sentencing recommendation to the judge about whether to imprison Mr. Trump, as was expected.
A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office declined to comment.
It might be too late for Justice Merchan to revisit the conviction. The deadline for filing post-trial motions was last month, and it is unclear whether the judge will seriously entertain the motion, even in light of the high court’s decision. Instead, he might direct Mr. Trump’s lawyers to raise the issue when they appeal the conviction after he is sentenced.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:44 pm to stout
Long shot, but I’d laugh for days if it got overturned
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:45 pm to stout
Not going to happen. But it would be glorious entertainment if it did.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:45 pm to stout
It is pretty clear he wrote that check to his attorney in 2017 for legal expenses. Even more clear, he was President in 2017.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:46 pm to NashvilleTider
quote:
Long shot,
I can't wait to read the briefs discussing how corporate payments for a "hush money" settlement were official acts of the President of the US.
I think the payments were made post-election, but pre-inauguration, too.
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 7:47 pm
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:48 pm to MykTide
Never forget that immunity is the right not to stand trial. That’s the very purpose of immunity and why it’s reviewable via the collateral order doctrine in federal court.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think the payments were made post-election, but pre-inauguration, too.
Wrong. The prosecution admitted they were made following the inauguration and after Trump declared his intention to run for a second term.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:51 pm to stout
His so called crimes were done before he was president, no?
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:51 pm to Riverside
quote:
Wrong.
That was posted by a MAGA person earlier today when the same theory was presented.
After looking at the indictment, most of the payments were made post-innaguration.
The "official acts" argument is still beyond a reach, but I'm willing to listen for laughter
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:52 pm to Riverside
I think it is more about some of the evidence used during the trial that would be covered under the immunity. That is what I heard on several channels.
This post was edited on 7/1/24 at 7:55 pm
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:in
but I'm willing to listen for laughter
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:53 pm to stout
Would rather the appeal overturn it, along with a scolding for the lower court.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:54 pm to Timeoday
quote:
It is pretty clear he wrote that check to his attorney in 2017 for legal expenses. Even more clear, he was President in 2017
But that act was a personal act on his behalf, not an official act as part of his role as president.
Ordering the prideboys to hang Mike Pence because he believed it was necessary to enforce election security, sure. Paying off a hooked to protect his reputation doesn't smell quite the same.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:55 pm to stout
I don’t want immunity for this. I want this to be strictly interpreted. Next Biden going to be using it for real crimes.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:55 pm to TigerFanatic99
quote:
Ordering the prideboys to hang Mike Pence because he believed it was necessary to enforce election security,
Oh, frick off.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The "official acts" argument is still beyond a reach, but I'm willing to listen for laughter
Cause you know Merchan is willing to be removed from the Bench
rather than turn Trump loose.
If he gets removed Rachel Maddow has a 20 million dollar contract
waiting for him. That money will be crooked also.
It’s yall’s way counselor
Posted on 7/1/24 at 7:59 pm to bamadontcare
quote:
Cause you know Merchan is willing to be removed from the Bench
rather than turn Trump loose.
If he gets removed Rachel Maddow has a 20 million dollar contract
waiting for him. That money will be crooked also.
It’s yall’s way counselor
Do you want to try to argue the payments to Cohen were official Executive/Presidential actions? Feel free.
Posted on 7/1/24 at 8:01 pm to stout
quote:
Yet his lawyers are likely to argue that prosecutors built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only may not charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations.

Popular
Back to top


18











