Judge rules Trump’s conviction withstands Supreme Court immunity decision

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Because under Federal Campaign finance laws Candidates can contribute as much as they want to the own campiagn. So while there would have been a reporting violation (civil) it would not have risen to campaign fraud (criminal).

This isn't why Trump wasn't prosecuted.

 

[Athanasius68]

In addition, Trump's own attorneys conceded that paying his attorney to bribe a porn star into silence is not an "official act."

This is true.

The SCOTUS ruling is sweeping -- but still doesn't manage to cover this situation.

Oh, but it does.

Since committing fraud to hide hush money payments to a porn star is not an official act -- something even Dear Leader's own attorneys conceded in their filings -- he doesn't get a pass.

He gets a pass, or will get a pass. because Judge Merchan permitted evidence about his official acts into the trial.
That is also a 'no-no' as per the SCOTUS ruling.

That's why the only thing his attorneys objected to, in their filing, was testimony by Cohen, Westerhout and Hicks.

Cohen was Trump's private attorney, so that doesn't work.

Trump's attorneys did not try to assert immunity with Westerhout's testimony, so they can't raise that on appeal.

The WH aides all testified before the immunity decision was released.

And as noted in my post above, Hicks' testimony was favorable to Trump -- so even if it gets removed, all the other evidence is valid, and thus the conviction is valid.

The immunity objection gets Trump a delay on sentencing.
However, he has much stronger arguments that his more 'established' constitutional rights were violated.

And no, you don't get to toss an entire case because one witnesses' testimony is invalidated in the appeal. You still have to show that the testimony was critical to the decision; and since Hicks' testimony was beneficial to the defendant, that's not going to work.

In their closing argument, the prosecution argued that the testimony of the WH aides was 'devastating.'
And that is because that testimony was about Trump, as president, reviewed and wanted to know what the documents he was signing were all about.

 

[Oxnard]

• Judge Merchan's failure to recuse himself for manifest political bias against President Trump;
• The unconstitutional gag order he imposed on President Trump during the trial;
• Judge Merchan's admission of plainly inadmissible, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial testimony against President Trump; and
• Judge Merchan's refusal to permit former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith to testify as to the meaning and complexities of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

May/may not tell you what you wish to hear, however that does not mean data is necessarily accurate/inaccurate.
Can you point out major deal breakers, Merchan seems to be handling case reasinably.

Some data stands arguable, little if any patently false.

 

[Athanasius68]

As a reminder, the defense did a terrible job of its defense throughout the entire trial -- in no small part because a certain unstable client decided it was more important to use the trial for political grandstanding, than to try and win the case.

Back in the real world, all of the acts took place before he was President, and were not in connection to any official duties once he became President. Dear Leader's attorneys have just gone back to flinging shitty arguments at the court, hoping that something somehow sticks anyway.

In the real world, all the acts for which Mr. Trump was indicted occurred in 2017- AFTER he was president.
You folks are still trying to pin crimes on him for which he was never actually indicted.

 

[Parrish]

The President has no pardon power for state criminal convictions.

WW

Right, I know. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't do it. And it doesn't mean that the SC wouldn't rule in his favor.

 

[Athanasius68]

Sigh... No.

After the SCOTUS ruling, the POTUS has immunity for almost anything he does while in office. This is because the SCOTUS decided that:

• Anything and everything the POTUS does in connection with his duties is immune from prosecution.
• The legal system is barred from assuming that because an act is illegal, it is disconnected from the POTUS' duties.
• Investigators will be routinely barred from accessing potential evidence.

Thus, the President could order the assassination of the Environmental Protection Agency, claim that managing personnel is one of his enumerated powers, give everyone else involved in the assassination a pardon, and still be immune from criminal prosecution -- even if he's impeached.

Progressives do indeed take a rather expansive view of the Constitution...

The president doesn't have the authority to summarily order the execution of anyone.
The end.

However, the NY state fraud case is based on actions from BEFORE Dear Leader became President in 2016. Meaning the SCOTUS' ruling does not even remotely apply to those charges.

The charges were about events that occurred in 2017.
After he was inagurated.

As usual, Dear Leader's attorneys are throwing everything they can grab at the wall, in the desperate hope that something will stick. In this case, they're trying to claim that the entire case was invalid because... prosecutors asked a few White House staffers about some of the details.

Shrug. Its an appeal based upon the immunity decision.

Meanwhile, none of the fraud was connected to any official duties, and it almost all happened before he took office anyway. I.e. the defense's arguments are insultingly absurd, but that's just par for the course for Dear Leader's scummy lawyers.

 

[Athanasius68]

They don’t get that the decision came out after the conviction and that the judge now has to weigh it against the mountain of evidence to see if was determinative.

WW

No. If immunity applies, it doesn't matter.

 

[WorldWatcher]

lol. Was it a campaign contribution by Cohen? Or a loan?

Both.

Cohen took out a loan on his house to finance his payment to Daniel’s.

Secondly, “loans” under federal campaign laws are required to be reported so even, which it was not, a loan to support Trumps campaign unreported is still illegal.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

This isn't why Trump wasn't prosecuted.

Agreed. The question was why wasn’t Trump prosecuted by the DOJ.

Some are trying to imply that Trumps New York illegal business transactions should have been charged by the DOJ.

The DOJ doesn’t prosecute state business crimes.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

No. If immunity applies, it doesn't matter.

Immunity applies to constitutional duties of the Office of the President, paying a porn start is not one of the Presidents official duties.

WW

 

[Athanasius68]

Immunity applies to constitutional duties of the Office of the President, paying a porn start is not one of the Presidents official duties.

WW

Immunity also applies to duties of the president that is used in evidence in other trials.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Immunity also applies to duties of the president that is used in evidence in other trials.

Paying a porn star and committing business fraud in your private company isn't one of the President's duties.

What the Supreme Court said in Trump V. United States (2024) was (in a nut shell). That determination feel into 3 categories, basically Total, Presumptive, and Personal.



Total = Paying a porn star and committing business fraud are not core Constitutional acts.

Presumptive = Applies to official acts not in the Constitution. Paying a porn star and committing business fraud are not official duties of the Office of the President.

Personal = Bingo!

WW

 

[Athanasius68]

Paying a porn star and committing business fraud in your private company isn't one of the President's duties.

What the Supreme Court said in Trump V. United States (2024) was (in a nut shell). That determination feel into 3 categories, basically Total, Presumptive, and Personal.

View attachment 67548246

Total = Paying a porn star and committing business fraud are not core Constitutional acts.

Presumptive = Applies to official acts not in the Constitution. Paying a porn star and committing business fraud are not official duties of the Office of the President.

Personal = Bingo!

WW

The Court also ruled that even with respect to criminal allegations involving private conduct, prosecutors are not allowed to use official acts as evidence to prove private illegality.

 

[hooligan]

I don't care to argue about the argument. Either way, the only way the Constitution provides to stop the POTUS from executing his duties is impeachment and removal. States can't hold a sentencing over his head and say we'll get back to you when you are out of office.

Where does the Constitution say that?

He wasn't President when he was convicted.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Court also ruled that even with respect to criminal allegations involving private conduct, prosecutors are not allowed to use official acts as evidence to prove private illegality.

Talking about paying off a porn star and conspiring to commit business fraud are not official acts.

WW

 

[dcsports]

Both.

Cohen took out a loan on his house to finance his payment to Daniel’s.

Secondly, “loans” under federal campaign laws are required to be reported so even, which it was not, a loan to support Trumps campaign unreported is still illegal.

WW

It's a BIG stretch - and the FEC said it wasn't illegal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's a BIG stretch - and the FEC said it wasn't illegal.

The FEC doesn’t get to make any judgement on New York business fraud.

WW

 

[Visbek]

Paying a porn star and committing business fraud in your private company isn't one of the President's duties.

Yup. Even Trump's own attorneys conceded that point in this trial:

"This court need not decide whether the crimes of which Defendant was convicted constitute officials acts because Defendant concedes that they were decidedly unofficial."

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

It's a BIG stretch - and the FEC said it wasn't illegal.

No, "the FEC" did not say it "wasn't illegal."

The FEC isn't an individual, it's a Commission. It is made up of 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats, with 4 votes required pursue an investigation.

In this case, the Commission's lawyers recommended that charges be brought against Trump, but the Commission deadlocked, with the three Republicans voting to protect Trump.

 

[The AntiDonald]

One thing is for certain, this needs to be resolved soon. A State can't have a case hanging over a sitting President.

Says who? I don't believe it's ever happened before. We've never had a sitting and ex-president with such a criminal past. I don't believe the constitution addresses this at all. A new precedence has been set, and we'll just have to deal with it.

The difference is that Nixon had the decency and common sense to get the hell out while he still could. Had Trump dropped all the political BS and just left the scene, I doubt any of this would have happened to him. He brought it all on himself.

 

[Athanasius68]

Talking about paying off a porn star and conspiring to commit business fraud are not official acts.

WW

However, eliciting testimony from WH aides about how President Trump works as president (ie-- reviewing and being informed of the content of document of which he signs) does describe his official acts.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, "the FEC" did not say it "wasn't illegal."

The FEC isn't an individual, it's a Commission. It is made up of 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats, with 4 votes required pursue an investigation.

In this case, the Commission's lawyers recommended that charges be brought against Trump, but the Commission deadlocked, with the three Republicans voting to protect Trump.

Translation--- the commission did not agree that the evidence supported further action.

Further translation--- Mr. Trump did nothing illegal.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Translation--- the commission did not agree that the evidence supported further action.

Half of the Commission (and their legal staff) did in fact agree that the evidence supported further action. The other (GOP) members did not.

Further translation--- Mr. Trump did nothing illegal.

Well, the jury in NY disagreed with your assessment.

 

[The AntiDonald]

However, eliciting testimony from WH aides about how President Trump works as president (ie-- reviewing and being informed of the content of document of which he signs) does describe his official acts.

You are conveniently hiding behind a SC decision that was made up out of thin air. No precedent for this, nothing in the constitution, just their way of protecting their own political party/president. Woe betide everyone when we get a democrat president who decides to take advantage of this SC farce.

Can't wait for the court to squirm and squeal when some lawyer brings them a case and gives them the opportunity to overturn this immunity decision when it's politically expedient.

 

[Athanasius68]

Half of the Commission (and their legal staff) did in fact agree that the evidence supported further action. The other (GOP) members did not.

And...
Why assume the half was not interested in 'getting' Trump?

Well, the jury in NY disagreed with your assessment.

We are talking here of the feds and THEIR interpretation and enforcement of federal election law.

Merry Christmas.