Despite a jury finding President-elect Trump guilty on 34 felony counts related to hush-money payments, Justice Merchan sentenced him to an unconditional discharge. This decision, issued ten days before Trump’s inauguration, cited legal protections afforded to the presidential office as the overriding factor, not mitigating the seriousness of the crimes. Merchan stated that jail time would infringe upon the highest office in the land, making an unconditional discharge the only lawful sentence. Trump, appearing virtually, maintained his innocence and characterized the trial as a politically motivated attack.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s refusal to delay Donald Trump’s hush money sentencing is certainly a noteworthy event, and the 5-4 vote itself raises many questions. It’s surprising, given the gravity of the situation, that the decision wasn’t more unanimous. The fact that it was so closely divided, with three liberal justices siding with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, against four conservative justices, underscores the deep partisan divisions within the court. This narrow margin suggests that even within the conservative bloc, there might be differing opinions on the appropriate course of action.
The Court’s brief, unsigned order stated that the issues Trump raised could be addressed through the normal appeals process.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected Donald Trump’s emergency request to delay his sentencing in the New York hush money case, allowing the proceeding to commence Friday. The court deemed the burden on Trump’s presidential transition “relatively insubstantial,” given the judge’s intent to impose no penalty. Trump’s conviction stems from falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made before the 2016 election, a conviction he contests based on claims of presidential immunity. While Trump will appear virtually, the ruling sparked further ethical concerns surrounding a phone call between Justice Alito and the President-elect prior to the appeal.
Read More
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected Donald Trump’s emergency request to delay his sentencing in the New York hush-money case, allowing the proceeding to commence Friday morning. The Court reasoned that the sentencing’s burden on Trump’s responsibilities is minimal, given the judge’s indication of no penalties. Trump’s conviction stems from falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made before the 2016 election. While Trump argues the case involves official actions and thus immunity, the lower court rejected this claim, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene preemptively. A subsequent ethics controversy arose from a phone call between Justice Alito and Trump before the appeal.
Read More
President-elect Trump, facing imminent sentencing for falsifying business records, petitioned the Supreme Court to halt proceedings. His argument centers on a landmark “immunity” decision, claiming it shields him from prosecution. Supreme Court Justice Alito, who spoke with Trump before the filing but denies discussing the case, has faced criticism for prior rulings favoring Trump and right-wing interests. The court’s decision will determine whether Trump enters office as the first criminally convicted president.
Read More
Donald Trump’s legal team has filed a motion demanding the postponement of his January 10th sentencing in the New York hush money case. The core of their argument hinges on the claim that further legal proceedings are automatically stayed due to federal constitutional law. This, they contend, prevents the court from moving forward with sentencing until Trump’s appeal is concluded. It’s a bold move, arguing essentially that the legal process should be halted because of his current status.
This claim raises several questions about the intersection of federal and state legal processes, particularly concerning a former president facing state-level charges. The argument’s success hinges on a very specific interpretation of legal precedent, one that might be successfully challenged.… Continue reading
Trump’s recent call for a New York judge’s disbarment following the advancement of his hush-money conviction is, frankly, astounding. The sheer audacity of demanding such action against a judge who is simply upholding the law is breathtaking. It speaks volumes about a mindset that views the judicial system not as a system of justice, but as a tool to be manipulated or discarded when it doesn’t deliver desired outcomes.
This demand feels less like a legitimate legal challenge and more like a tantrum. It’s as if the entire process is a game, and the rules only apply when it suits the person in question.… Continue reading
Trump must be sentenced in his hush money criminal case on January 10th, a judge has ruled. This decision, handed down just days before his planned inauguration as president, leaves little room for maneuvering and sets the stage for a potentially unprecedented legal and political showdown. The judge’s refusal to dismiss the case, despite Trump’s arguments about the impact on his ability to govern, underscores the seriousness of the conviction and the court’s determination to proceed with sentencing.
Trump’s legal team had made repeated attempts to delay or even dismiss the case entirely. Their arguments, which included pleas to postpone the sentencing until after his potential 2029 departure from the White House, highlighted the extraordinary challenges presented by sentencing a sitting president.… Continue reading
President-elect Trump will be sentenced on January 10th for his “hush money” conviction, a case stemming from a $130,000 payment made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Justice Merchan’s decision rejects Trump’s claims of presidential immunity and dismissal arguments, despite the unprecedented nature of sentencing a president-elect. Although facing a potential four-year sentence, no jail time is anticipated by the court, and a virtual appearance is possible. The judge’s ruling also criticized Trump’s legal team’s rhetoric as potentially undermining the judiciary.
Read More
Donald Trump’s sentencing for 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, stemming from a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, is scheduled for January 10th. Judge Juan Merchan indicated that the sentence will likely be a conditional discharge, avoiding jail time, a fine, or probation. This decision follows Trump’s unsuccessful attempts to dismiss the case, citing presidential immunity and potential interference with his presidency. Despite the charges carrying a potential four-year prison sentence, legal experts previously deemed incarceration unlikely.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood