Acting Justice Juan Merchan rejected Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in the hush-money case, ruling that the actions were personal, not official. Trump denounced the decision as illegal and politically motivated, claiming it disregarded Supreme Court precedent and constituted a “rigged hoax.” The ruling maintains a gag order preventing Trump from publicly discussing the case. This decision, according to Trump, threatens the future of the presidency.
Read More
A New York judge has rejected Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution in the hush-money case, ruling that the Supreme Court’s decision regarding presidential actions during office is irrelevant to this conviction. The judge’s decision upholds Trump’s May conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. This ruling confirms that, barring a successful appeal, Trump will be the first convicted criminal to assume the presidency. The case centered on payments made to a porn star during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Read More
A New York judge has ruled that Donald Trump is not entitled to immunity from prosecution in the hush-money case. This decision directly addresses Trump’s attempt to leverage claims of presidential immunity to dismiss the 34 felony charges against him. The judge’s rejection of this argument is significant, representing a decisive blow to Trump’s legal strategy. This ruling allows the criminal case to proceed, unburdened by the complexities and potential delays that the immunity claim introduced.
The judge’s decision explicitly rejects the argument that actions taken before Trump assumed the presidency, or during his time in office, automatically shield him from prosecution under the umbrella of presidential immunity.… Continue reading
Trump’s recent attempt to dismiss the New York hush money case on the grounds of presidential immunity has been unsuccessful. The court’s rejection of this argument leaves the case open to potentially proceed to sentencing, although Trump’s legal team is likely to continue their fight. This outcome has ignited strong reactions, with many expressing satisfaction that the former president, now president-elect, is being held accountable. Others, however, believe this case highlights a deep-seated inequality within the American justice system.
The ruling against Trump’s immunity claim is seen by many as a victory for the principle of equal justice under the law.… Continue reading
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed an 82-page motion opposing Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss his hush-money case before his January 20 inauguration. Bragg argues that Trump’s “history of malicious conduct,” including threats and attacks on the judicial process, precludes dismissal and that “president-elect immunity” does not exist. The motion emphasizes the seriousness of Trump’s crimes, which involved falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money payment made shortly before the 2016 election, and their impact on the integrity of the electoral process. Bragg requests either pre-inauguration sentencing or a postponement until after Trump’s second term.
Read More
Following a Manhattan jury’s May conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, President-elect Trump’s sentencing has been indefinitely postponed. His legal team’s motion to dismiss the hush-money case, arguing for presidential immunity, is currently under consideration by the judge. This postponement cancels the previously scheduled sentencing and allows the defense to pursue dismissal. The case, stemming from payments made to Stormy Daniels, is now stalled pending the outcome of the dismissal motion.
Read More
Judge Juan Merchan has postponed his decision on whether to dismiss Donald Trump’s conviction on presidential immunity grounds until November 19th, following requests for a postponement from both the defense and prosecution. The delay comes after Trump, who was convicted of falsifying business records in a scheme to influence the 2016 election, was elected President of the United States. This decision raises unprecedented legal questions about the impact of Trump’s presidency on his ongoing criminal case, as prosecutors and defense attorneys grapple with the potential implications of Trump’s new role on the proceedings.
Read More
The recent decision by the US Supreme Court to decline to halt Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case has sparked a mix of reactions and emotions across the country. Missouri filed a last-ditch effort to stop the sentencing, claiming it infringed on the rights of voters under the US Constitution. However, the justices of the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicating they would have taken it up.
This move by the Supreme Court highlights the complexities and nuances of our justice system. It signifies a moment where even the three justices appointed by Trump himself opted not to intervene in the sentencing process.… Continue reading
I cannot help but feel disillusioned as I read about the latest development in Trump’s hush money case. The judge has decided to delay Trump’s sentencing to examine how a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity could impact the outcome. It is disheartening to witness the lengths to which individuals will go to shield Trump from facing the consequences of his actions.
One of the main arguments being made is that Trump’s communications while he was president should not be admissible as evidence in a criminal trial for events that occurred before his presidency. This raises the question of whether Trump’s personal dealings, such as the Stormy Daniels pay-off, can be considered official acts of the presidency.… Continue reading
Phil needs to take several seats and stay in his lane. Calling on President Biden to dismiss Trump’s hush money conviction shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the American legal system. Trump was convicted by the state of New York, and only the governor of New York has the power to pardon individuals convicted of state crimes. Dr. Phil’s call for dismissal is not only misguided but also ignores the basic principles of the law.
Trump was given a fair trial, where a jury of his peers unanimously found him guilty. He had the opportunity to plead down early on but chose not to because that would require admitting wrongdoing.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood