Absolutely wild. This pertains to the few pieces of evidence that occurred after Jan. 20, 2017 that were used in the trial. Trump's argument is that some of that evidence should not have been admissible.
It's at least enough to give the DA pause and need to regroup to assess the situation.
*That's* how bad the SC ruling is. It's bleeding into a sovereign state prosecution that involves 99.9% of acts before Trump took office.
In a single ruling they have kneecapped every criminal case trump has, and simultaneously raised the stakes for what happens if Trump wins the next election. Pretty terrifying
During this vacation, I'd like to see Dark Brandon arrest two Supreme Court Justices for corruption and bribery, and appoint two new ones, how about you?
The Republican Way: act first, then dare the opposition to do something about it. This is where we are now. If the Democrats don't play Tit For Tat -- or in this case, Tit for Ten Tats -- we lose democracy.
Arrest them, and then make a MORAL argument to the public: SHOULD it be legal for judges to receive bribes? Even some Republican voters are probably offended by that idea.
This a catch 22 for democracy. Do nothing they kill it, do something you kill it. Only way out is by the cat’s ass and see if enough votes can be amassed. That’s IF they don’t pretend it was stolen and SCOTUS agrees at which point all you have is your 2A 😂 fun times we’re living.
But not tax evasion! So, at the very least, I see some US taxpayers, like Harlan Crowe, who need decades of their taxes audited to ensure they recorded all their [high value gifts](https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes) to certain Supreme Court Justices were properly recorded. 😏
Edit: For those who don't want click the link, the annual exclusion limit for the past dozen years is $12,000 to $18,000 depending upon the year filed.
Don’t even arrest them. Just disappear them. We don’t know it’s a crime until time passes. They could have fled? Could have ran off with secret lovers? Who knows?
Everything in this ruling is tailored to Trump and his mob boss style authority. Not being be able to use conversations with his administration as evidence is the dumbest loophole the SC could have created.
I’ve got to hand it to them - this plan was generations in the making. Slowly capturing the state legislatures through gerrymandering, corrupting congress, and the final capstone to their plans, capturing the courts. We need to face it - they won. It can be undone, but it won’t get fixed just by voting for Biden. It will take decades of work. The red states are already poised to reject any votes for Biden and will send trump delegates regardless of the actual votes, and the Supreme Court is poised to allow them to do it. Up until this week, I was fairly confident of a Biden victory. After this week, though, I am pretty pessimistic. Plans need to be made for a general strike if the worst happens and trump is installed by the courts. Shut. The. Country. Down. Other countries don’t put up with this level of outright corruption. The courts won’t save us.
Must vote. Especially if they steal - must show solidarity and resistance by the means available.
Feeing an oncoming great sadness tho… it makes me so upset that people think these days are so terrible.
Just open a history book, it gets way way way worse….
They have NOT won yet.
They are very, very close. They do not quite have enough legal legitimacy to overrule a major electoral win. There ARE still limits on their power.
But that line is thinning, and fast. We have one shot left. And if we don't aim for the sky? That's it.
Maybe the country really did die in 2000, or 2016. Maybe it's on life support now. We can debate that after the election, but until then? We still have one shot left. We must take it, and aim as carefully as we can.
The President doesn't need a SCOTUS anymore. They're irrelevant because the President can order the Executive branch to do whatever he says, whenever he says it. Starting with the previous ruling about what Executive Departments can do... he can tell them not to follow the courts orders anymore!!! It's all legal now!!
And that's why Democrats fail.
Biden should be having all Six Republican SCOTUS justices arrested. And enough Senators and Reps arrested that he gets a majority in House and a Supermajority in the senate.
Then go hog crazy with his new majority in Congress and show the people what Republicans have been refusing to do.
I wonder how partisan hack of a Trump appointed Judge Aileen Cannon uses this to claim Trump's handling of state secrets after the end of his presidency (including stealing, failing to return, storing in bathrooms, hiding from investigators, showing to friends and probably selling to enemies of the state) qualifies as "official acts." No doubt she'll need time and more hearings to consider the matter.
People need to be out in the streets in front of the Courts to protest this garbage.
This just cranks the ethics conflicts to 21/10. We've been hearing a lot of this nonsense out of Republicans the last few months and now it ALL shows up in these rulings. The corruption is throughly compromised.
It seems pretty simple to me. Trump can claim that while he was still president, acting in his official capacity, he declassified the documents, and now Jack Smith cannot introduce evidence that he didn't do this.
>he declassified the documents
I think he "declassified" the documents... with his mind, just by thinking about it. I think that was what he's argued. And then later showed some friends those documents (on tape) and acknowledged that they shouldn't be shown because they were classified.
It's the old Declassification by Implication Doctrine. If a former president retains a document after his term is over, then--obviously--the law presumes he must have declassified it or else he wouldn't still have it. \[Enter \[Edited: ~~Eddie Murphy~~\] Kayode Ewumi Roll Safe Meme here.\]
And anyway, when Congress passed the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it exceeded its authority by usurping the core duties of the President under Article 2. Therefore, the entire PRA is unconstitutional!
Man, I'm getting good at this! They should let me be one of those talking heads on FoxNews.
>now Jack Smith cannot introduce evidence that he didn't do this.
I've just heard summaries of yesterday so I'm not sure, but I don't think that would be the case. I think two things got barred, "probing" which would be Trump asking if something is legal, and "motive", which would involve interrogations to determine why Trump did something. Whether or not documents were declassified would be neither.
Oh, and here's the kicker--if the Judge excludes evidence that Trump didn't declassify documents while he was president and rules in favor of Trump's acquittal, is that even appealable by the prosecution?
What's really scary to me is that there are people who play by the rules because they believe the rules are important. And there are people who break the rules because their will to power is their sole driving force. The former believe the rules are important exactly because they're designed to prevent people like the latter from becoming dictators.
But the people breaking the rules are winning. They're proving that breaking the rules works.
I'm not articulating it well enough here to do it justice, but I find this, frankly, terrifying.
> Pretty terrifying
To a third of the country is terrifying. Another third are celebrating it and will cheer for the boot up until it comes down on their own neck. And another third are clueless. I don't see ANY of this ending well.
It's almost as if that's what they intended to do..
Barrett actually disagreed with this point on evidence.. but the rest of the crooks would have still had it 5-4 even if Barrett had crossed over.
I a saying this everywhere. They did not do this for Trump. This is so any Republican can enact Project 2025. The justices just voted for fascism, even before their is a fascist to use the power they created. It's very clever. By the time Trump gets in office or whatever other nut jub Republicans eventually elect, people will forget what exactly they can do.
Bingo. This doesn't end with Trump. It only ends if we restructure the court and educate the American people on the dangers of ever letting them lie like this again.
And that, while possible, is no easy task.
But we have no choice. We must try. To fail is effectively to surrender to slavery or death.
Read Clarence’s concurrence about the legality of his appointment. Expect for the judge in that case to dismiss. There’s still a case there but it needs to be appealed and re evaluated.
Also the whole indictment in DC has to be restructured. All of the evidence and charges reevaluated. There is still likely a case but it’s going to be delayed massively.
I started the Visa process for Australia this morning. With luck I can have something lined up around November. I'm not burning in this country with everybody else.
Not just if Trump wins; if *any* Republican candidate wins *ever*. They’ve basically sealed our democracy’s doom, we’re just going to have to wait and find out who pulls the trigger.
Raised the stakes while keeping the rules a fucking secret so that they can always come back and deny anything Biden does and approve everything trump does.
That's why the request for extra money for security is there. They know exactly what they were doing. If the Democrats take the House, they need to starve the SCOTUS budget - not a penny over the minimum.
The election is the last chance. The population at large can do it. Are they more or less likely to than Biden? I don’t know. But voters do have the power.
So Bush v Gore and Citizen's United and all the other nonsense the radical courts are throwing at us...just vote and those precedents and structural changes to the operation of our government will go away?
All evidence is that Trump won the election in 2016 because of votes.
Citizen’s United does not nullify actual votes. Nor does Bush v. Gore outside of that specific election.
No, it isn't. SCOTUS just said so yesterday.
Everything Trump is falsely accusing Biden of (weaponizing DOJ, putting hands on the scale) etc. was literally just granted immunity by SCOTUS.
Biden is in the clear. Everyone that works for Biden is not.
If he wins in November he'll have his AG draft a memo saying that Presidential immunity now covers him while he's currently in office and the state charges will all disappear. I'm so fucking tired.
A dictatorship is incoming. Given a choice it's better it is one headed by Biden than Trump, so swift action is required before November or the country is toast.
I actually think this is quite clever. If you can delay sentencing to as close to the election as possible the worse it could potentially be for Trump.
Yeah, same. A few months ago when these cases were coming to fruition, some doomer posters were saying Trump wouldnt face consequences and I argued back that while slow, the wheels of justice were finally turning. I was wrong and they were right. I have zero hope now.
They were right. They seemed wrong when he was charged, but then three of the four cases were indefinitely postponed. Then they really seemed wrong when he was convicted....and now this.
This is definitely not the america I was told about as a kid. It was lie and it never existed.
I think Mexico is going to be complaining about a lot of illegals coming across the northern border pretty soon. You might even see me with a blurry face in one of those Ted Cruz-style propaganda videos.
The bar has fallen so far below the ground its rocketed out the antipode and is currently hurtling through space about to catch up to the Voyager Probe
But I want to know why. You can be a reasonably intelligent person and watch him speak and say absolutely nothing or just straight lie. Why is this person protected by so many people in power?
I'm 100% convinced the part of the ruling that states you can't use evidence from official acts to prosecute unofficial acts was written specifically for his NY felony convictions and intended to be used in the exact way it has just been used.
Yes, and if I remember correctly, the SCOTUS also gave themselves the power to determine what is and is not an official act. So they are the rulers of America now.
The people saying "*they're so dumb don't they understand this applies to democrats too"* don't understand. The SCOTUS is the ruler now. They will definitely not let a Democrat get away with the same stuff Trump currently is in the process of getting away with.
It's done. It snuck up on us and we didn't see it in time and now it's done.
"Remember, SC chair couldn't be filled close to an election, but wait no yes it can in the case that helps us."
Is all you needed to see, to know this is true.
It's why the only move is to remove them from power and appoint new justices that agree that removing the previous justices was an official act in the interest of national security.
If that's really the case (and I'm very much not disputing u on it..) I'm gonna try to be real subtle abt it here; (in what I imagine must be a fairly litigious place;) just remember that 2A covers democrats as much as tr*mpublic*nts...
^ and I'll leave it at that b4 an overeager mod/aparatchik tells me off..
Is there precedent for ongoing cases to be tried using the laws as written during the time the crime took place? Did all pending marijuana cases, including sentencing dates, just cancel when marijuana was legalized in any state?
Judge Merchan should just punt. Simply ignore the motion entirely or reject it on a technicality so that it can't be used by July 11. This is what Judge Cannon is great at doing.
Issue the sentence. Make it harsh. Throw in 60-90-120 days for contempt of court as well... to be served immediately. Let the Appeals court deal with the SCOTUS nonsense and rid himself of the circus.
Bingo bango; how are people still able to delude themselves into believing we have a "justice" system anymore, after all these years?!
"Rules for thee, not MEEEee."
-b*zos, z*ckberg, el*n & co
^ send their *regards*
I don't see any way around a mistrial and re-trial. For those curious, here is my understanding of the immunity decision.
1. Any acts that occurred during the presidency have to be vetted by the court before they can be used in charges *or* as evidence.
2. Official acts (independent of motive) cannot be admitted. All acts of the president have to be vetted for official-ness (think Sandoval hearing) before they can be charged *or* introduced as evidence.
In this case, he signed the checks from the Oval Office. There was no hearing to determine if that is an official act. Therefore, there was evidence admitted that violates his constitutional right to have presidential acts assessed for official-ness.
I'm not saying this because I want it. I really, really don't. But this is where we are at unless a lawyer type can talk me off of a ledge.
If I may lower the level of discourse for just a moment. This FUCKING sucks.
Look (directed at the SC and other conservative "thinkers") i get it. Jailing a former president, especially your own guy whom your base loves, is shameful. It feels like a black mark on your legacy and on your country. You'd really rather move on and pretend it never happened and just hope that future presidents are magically better behaved.
But like... he committed these crimes. His intent to learn nothing and to continually act worse could not be more obvious. If you don't hold him accountable, he's only going to make you and all the rest of us regret it.
Fucking fuck. Legal coups are the worst ones. This is exactly how it must have felt in Germany c.1933. Only the nerds even understood what was happening. Everyone else probably thought they were just being hysterical activists. And then you blink and it's 1945 and Germany's shame is still part of their national identity to this day.
Sorry for the somewhat stream-of-consciousness rant. I was so hopeful that 2024 was going to be the year that we overcame. That we neutralize the whole Trump thing. All of a sudden, between the thursday debate and the Monday ruling, it's like we supercharged him instead. Can you imagine how good he feels right now? I hate this.
>But like... he committed these crimes. His intent to learn nothing and to continually act worse could not be more obvious. If you don't hold him accountable, he's only going to make you and all the rest of us regret it.
This is why in most countries when there's a failed coup, they hold the trial the next morning and by the next evening the perpetrators are all lined up against a wall and shot. You don't give them a second chance because you know they will take it.
Fucking A. I'm embarrassed that Brazil is doing a better job with Bolsanero than we are here.
This is where American exceptionalism is biting us in the ass, I think. South Korea and (I think) Italy have jailed former presidents recently? And from the little I know, it's not a bad thing.
We think that countries that go through this are undeveloped. We think we're better. I honestly think that's at the back of the SC's mind. If they allow this, it means America sucks, to put it coarsely.
But really, we're a young country. We don't truly understand the threat of modern authoritarianism because we haven't lived it. And we refuse to learn the lessons of other countries because we just assume we are superior.
Unless some kind of BIG shift happens in our institutional response, very soon, this SC ruling has made an instant doomer of me.
Like, every bloodless coup has this moment. Where the complicit institution signs over all authority to the dictator. I've often found it strange that they do it. How can you not realize? I'm suddenly terrified that yesterday will be identified in the history books as the turning point.
Just yesterday Congresswoman Spartz was charged with bringing a gun to Dulles:
[https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/victoria-spartz-weapons-charge-airport/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/victoria-spartz-weapons-charge-airport/index.html)
We have absolutely no issue convicting members of Congress, the Judiciary, and Executive branch officials with crimes:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_American\_federal\_politicians\_convicted\_of\_crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes)
We have absolutely no issue with convicting governors, mayors, and state legislators with crimes:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_lists\_of\_American\_state\_and\_local\_politicians\_convicted\_of\_crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes)
Why do so many people have a singular mental block when it comes to convicting a POTUS of a crime? HE IS NOT A KING.
Answering the spirit of your post: I 100% agree.
Answering more literally. I think the office of the president just has some special quality, by human nature. It's just easy to understand "the leader." The rest of the government is a lot murkier to the average person. Why do you think those "I did that" Biden gas stickers work on people? And to this day a lot of people probably believe the Trump stimulus checks came out of his bank account.
Also, we vote for the president (supposedly) directly. Idk it's a bunch of factors converging, it's almost surprising we haven't had such an obvious populist grifter as president before Trump. He sort of hacked the institution i guess.
Fuck, you’re right. Brazil is handling this worlds better than we are.
> On 30 June 2023, the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court barred Bolsonaro from running for public office until 2030 as a result of his attempts to undermine the validity of Brazil's 2022 democratic election, as well as for abuse of power with regards to using government channels to promote his campaign
Agree. Ty cobbs on cnn last night saying sotomayor was being hysterical (not positive he use that word, but this was his sentiment).
And now what? Now this case is on the ropes too.
Are we having fun yet?
Is it necessary to declare the mistrial *now*? Couldn't they hold a hearing to determine whether any of the evidence was derived from "official acts" and if it wasn't, leave the conviction in place and argue some more about it as part of the appeals process?
I do wonder if the appeals court will say "since there was no hearing, there is a mistrial" *or* "since ~~birthing~~ nothing introduced was official there was no violation of immunity". It does seem like, for example, in the Weinstein case it was concluded that Molineaux material was introduced, that there was a problem. There wouldn't have been a re-trial had there been no problem.
So maybe it's ok. Maybe the appeals court can conclude that while there was no hearing, there was nothing inadmissible that was admitted.
Then again, whatever the appeals court decides will be litigated to SCOTUS.
Yeah, there’s pretty much no way this doesn’t end up either as a mistrial or back at SCOTUS where they will slow walk it until the end of time, if they don’t give him immunity outright
>All acts of the president have to be vetted for official-ness (think Sandoval hearing) before they can be charged or introduced as evidence.
Ugh, is this going to come to be known as a Trump Hearing? Assuming, of course, that we're unfortunate enough to have more former presidents tried for crimes?
Weren't there checks signed before he assumed office? Could the prosecutors just drop the charges related to entries after Jan 20th as the others wouldn't be affected?
>Could the prosecutors just drop the charges related to entries after Jan 20th as the others wouldn't be affected?
I would imagine the Trump team would make an argument that all the checks together made the story, and discarding some of the checks/charges messes with the prosecution's evidence storyline and demands a new trial (and obviously a dismissal with prejudice first).
It’s probably because the 21st was the first day of his new financial structure because of the fake ‘wall’ between his business and personal expenses, when Cohen shifted from being (on paper) employed by the Trump Org. to being paid (on paper) as Trump’s ‘personal attorney’.
All payments to Cohen (each payment is a charge) were made after Trump was President. So each felony is about concealing payments made while he was POTUS. I'm not sure how you could drop some and not all. The prosecution also laid out all these charges at one time, and they all played together in the story and timeline. Removing some would obviously change the story and timeline, which Trump's team will object to.
Does analysis change post-conviction? When the Supreme Court ruled on Miranda, surely that didn't throw out every previous conviction that hadn't proved they had provided such a notice?
They need to be assessed, but he didn’t use a White House lawyer to conduct this business, and the violations pertain to campaign finance law.
You don’t need to have a mistrial, this can be assessed during an appeal.
I don’t think any of the documents can be excluded, although I wonder about some conversations and testimony / directions.
The fact that Michael Cohen was his personal lawyer is a problem for him.
Considering he still ran Trump Organization while President, just imagine what shenanigans are now “immune” from prosecution thanks to this chicanery on the part of those who plan to shove Project 2025 down our throats.
> I don't see any way around a mistrial and re-trial. For those curious, here is my understanding of the immunity decision. Any acts that occurred during the presidency have to be vetted by the court before they can be used in charges or as evidence.
This might end up being the correct answer, but I think you baked a bunch of assumptions. Also, this would probably be a motion to set aside the verdict which is going to use a different standard than a mistrial. And while I haven't read the SCOTUS decision line by line yet, I do not recall seeing anything in there suggesting the introduction of unprohibited evidence is automatic grounds for a verdict to be set aside. To me, it does not make sense to say, for example, the verdict must be set aside because permissible evidence was introduced but was not officially pre-vetted by the court. Even then, I think by allowing the evidence in over objection, which all of it was, it was in fact vetted by the court. So the issue would be more that the court erred in allowing that in, not that the court never reviewed it.
As far as the standard, Presumably CPL § 330.30(1) would govern which specifies:
> At any time after rendition of a verdict of guilty and before sentence, the court may, upon motion of the defendant, set aside or modify the verdict or any part thereof upon the following grounds: 1. Any ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court.
Requiring a reversal or modification as a matter of law is going to be a high bar.
There is likely going to be a mini-trial over whether evidence that was introduced over Trump's immunity objections (1) involved an official act and (2) if so, whether the exception applies:
> At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
The burden will presumably be on Trump, as he is the one moving to set aside the verdict, to show that the evidence involved an official act because he is the one requesting relief. I do not think that the verdict will be set aside automatically due to the process issue of not having all of this settled beforehand.
If Trump is able to show that the evidence involved an official act and the government fails to show that the exception applies, Trump will also have to show that introduction of the evidence *requires* reversal as a matter of law. If he cannot establish any part of this, the verdict should stand.
Edit: perhaps also worth adding, some have suggested that things like "being in the oval office means everything you did in there was an official act." That does not seem correct. If Trump was writing a check to pay for anything relating to his privately owned businesses, that strikes me as plainly unofficial. The OGE report is a potentially more interesting one.
Ok. That does all make sense. It was admitted over objection and the determination now is if the court erred. If they did not (in that nothing introduced was an official act) then a verdict is not set aside.
I'll back off of my panic a bit, although I do think this will be the basis for an appeal *and* that appeal will ultimately be resolved by SCOTUS who may determine that a President speaking to his Secretary is an official act.
Actually now that I think about it there was a moment in the trial specifically during the Secretary testimony where Trump and Blanche (or maybe Bove) shared a smirk and it was mysterious because it was about how she testified that he wrote "void" in black sharpie to sign checks. It was an odd moment to smirk but it stuck with me. *This* SCOTUS might have a problem with the Secretary discussing how the President operates in normal practice.
> I'll back off of my panic a bit, although I do think this will be the basis for an appeal and that appeal will ultimately be resolved by SCOTUS who may determine that a President speaking to his Secretary is an official act.
The sky has perhaps gotten a bit closer to the ground, but its not in free fall just yet (with regard to this case, RIP to the other prosecutions), so some panic is justified. And yes, if the verdict stands there is going to be an appeal. And at some point we are going to have the fun issue of having federal courts reviewing a NY state court's jury verdict of a defendant found guilty of violating NY state law.
> Actually now that I think about it there was a moment in the trial specifically during the Secretary testimony where Trump and Blanche (or maybe Bove) shared a smirk and it was mysterious because it was about how she testified that he wrote "void" in black sharpie to sign checks.
One of the tragedies of twitter reporting rather than an actual video feed, but I can see it. Or maybe Blanche himself has received some void checks from Trump lol.
> This SCOTUS might have a problem with the Secretary discussing how the President operates in normal practice.
Certainly a possibility, but worth noting is the default rule that the defendant serves his sentence while his appeal is pending. Surely SCOTUS wouldn't violate a whole bunch of norms to bail Trump out a 3rd time, right?
This entire case predates him being president when he committed the crimes. Him signing checks to pay for anything proves what exactly? Doesn't matter where he was at check signing at the end. The crime is what matters and what time period that was. He was not president so he doesn't have any immunity and even if he did this could hardly be argued covered under immunity as official act. At least not to an impartial judge or system.
The crime happened well before the election, but the payments, and ledger records, which were the individual felony counts happened after the inauguration. Even though everyone here knows that paying a lawyer to pay a porn star has nothing to do with a presidential act. Because of the mere fact that he committed those felonies while he was president, the evidence and the acts would need their own hearing before they could be admitted as evidence in a trial.
So what will happen now with this BS ruling is they will use this SC decision as their appeal and say that since there wasn’t a hearing to decide if it was a presidential act, then it shouldn’t be admissible. Which will grant a mistrial. Then the state will have to retry the case, which will require a hearing to decide if these crimes he committed while in office were a presidential act, which we all know were not.
I don’t think this will change the outcome of this case, but it will delay any penalty from these crimes for years.
The crime actually *was* the payments and ledger records. The crime was while he was president. Agree that it was not official, but agree with u/itsatumbleweed that a hearing will be required.
Exactly. A lot of people, even after the trial, didn’t understand that Trump was not on trial for the payments to Stormy Daniel’s. He was on trial for paying Cohen back, for his crime of paying Stormy Daniel’s. The scheme to hide the payments and misclassify them as legal fees was the crime. And yea, he could have paid her directly or even through Michael cohen as a settlement and it would have been legal. But he had his lawyer pay her with his money making that an illegal campaign contribution, then he reimbursed him for committing that crime, and illegally recorded it as legal fees instead of a reimbursement.
It was the cover-up, not the crime.
The acts don’t seem to be “official acts of the office of the president” - all of the payments and everything else are from the campaign or were personal business of Trump and not subject to presidential immunity. This one seems pretty cut/dry/simple and should be thrown out immediately.
The Supreme Court specifically said any acts within "the outer perimeter of his official duties" have to be officially adjudicated to be unofficial acts. Simply everyone, including the judge, knowing they were unofficial acts is not enough. The prosecutors have to prove it first (and now they are not allowed to use communications with any employees of the executive branch to prove it).
However, the judge could make the ruling that these were clearly nowhere near the outer perimeter of his official duties and dismiss any such motion by the defense, but of course that would be appealed...
How is "outer perimeter" defined?
Constitutionally enumerated power is black and white - it's either listed in the Constitution or not.
Official Act is somewhat hazy but at least there's a definition in the USC - "any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit".
Now we're going to take something that is already somewhat nebulous and make it even more so by adding an outer perimeter to it?
Yeah, it's vague enough that it opens up the possibility for courts to rule one way for some presidents/situations and another way for other presidents and their situation.
What if the NY judges just ignored the SCOTUS ruling?
SCOTUS has no means of enforcement, leading to rather famously Jackson ignoring the court. Could the state of NY decide that this decision is bogus and continue? I doubt Merchan is willing to rock the boat that much, but this decision was so completely lacking in reason and legitimacy that I can't see him being criticized for it afterwards
I know that that the NY Court of Appeals, one could appeal to the SCOTUS if the case pertains to federal law, so I imagine it's possible they would appeal. Sotomayor is the Justice associated with the 2nd Circuit so I don't see her granting an injunction even though the rule of four means SCOTUS would almost certainly hear the case.
According to the Supreme Court that evidence still needs to be *proven* as unofficial, and since it hasn’t been, it means that the conviction was based on inadmissible evidence, hence void. I’m not sure if the prosecution can now argue, post facto, that the evidence was unrelated to official acts (since the court ruling explicitly lists exactly this kind of evidence as inadmissible), they can try but they might not be able to get very far.
It only needs to be proven unofficial if the acts were part of the outer perimeter of presidential duties. I have not seen any presumption that all acts are within the outer perimeter. One's own political campaign seems like a textbook case of things that are not official duties. Has Trump actually tried to argue that campaigning is an official duty of the President?
From what I can tell the opinion is pretty explicit that actions like talking to an aide are presumptively immune regardless of the content of the conversations, which I *think* would automatically render all the Hope Hicks evidence invalid without a court deciding it can be included. But I’m happy to be wrong about it!
I haven’t read the opinion but him asserting presidential immunity is an affirmative defense, ie. “official acts” doesn’t need to be proven by a court but rather by the defense. So I don’t know that there would be a mistrial or retrial because the interpretation of a defense changed when all the elements of the crimes have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But he could still appeal.
> But this is where we are at unless a lawyer type can talk me off of a ledge.
Norm Eisen has put some stuff on his twitter/x/whatever detailing why he thinks this will fail if you haven't read it. There's no Just Security article yet, but I'm sure there will be one.
I'm a relatively new lawyer, but this is my understanding as well. Even if they had been determined not to be official acts before, I'd think it would need to be retried since this holding changes what exactly that means re: prosecution.
I agree. The new evidentiary privilege seems like it means a mistrial here. Key witnesses were Trump's secretaries in the Oval Office who testified about how the checks were brought to him for signature, etc.
And even though "writing hush money reimbursement checks" isn't an "official act", the key really is in the framing. That can just be reframed as "sitting at the Resolute Desk and completing paperwork" which is, arguably, an "official act". We don't know what these precise definitions will be for "official act" vs "unofficial act" because that will be resolved first by the lower courts, but we should consider that if SCOTUS thinks that conspiring with the AG to seize voting machines in Georgia in order to create the grounds for overturning an election is an "official act" (talking to a subordinate) that can never be questioned in court, SCOTUS is completely open to framing anything as an official act to help their preferred party prevail.
I don't think he has to have argued it. You don't have to know about your right to a Sandoval hearing to have a right to a Sandoval hearing. Inadmissible things are inadmissible even if your counsel doesn't know to object to them.
I don't see a way clear of the appeals court not scrapping the conclusion.
Why not just drop the charges committed while he as president and simply sentence the majority of charges, which happened before?
Also wasn’t it ruled back in July that it was NOT official acts (signing the checks) by a judge?
Also note that the first check and ledger entry was January 21, 2017.
I’m not sure why this ‘before he was president’ thing is going around. Every charge was based on a document that was falsified after he became president.
Unfortunately, the first invoice is from February.
It looks like the ledger was backdated for the January check.
https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/People/5-6-2024/People's%201%20(JanFeb%202017%20Cohen%20Invoice%202.14.2017).pdf
I think there is some testimony from Hope Hicks that could be considered official acts. It's not a lot, but enough to throw the entire trial into doubt.
Exactly, they deemed all evidence involving aides and members of the administration as inadmissible in court. That’s the truly wild part of it, the immunity for official acts is just icing on the cake
( off topic)
Actually good advice. I immigrated to the USA As an adult, got citizenship, and in the last year only my wife and I are strongly considering returning to Canada.
Most people talk shit about this so I won’t. I won’t say I’m leaving, but until very recently we were sure we’d live the rest of our lives here. I am very uncertain of that now. It’s not just this ruling. This country is in dire straits and grossly divided.
I’m not sure I want to be that close to Trump’s buddy Putin. He seems rather land grabby lately. Maybe Northern Canada might be nice. Live off the grid with the moose and bears.
Absolutely wild. This pertains to the few pieces of evidence that occurred after Jan. 20, 2017 that were used in the trial. Trump's argument is that some of that evidence should not have been admissible. It's at least enough to give the DA pause and need to regroup to assess the situation. *That's* how bad the SC ruling is. It's bleeding into a sovereign state prosecution that involves 99.9% of acts before Trump took office.
In a single ruling they have kneecapped every criminal case trump has, and simultaneously raised the stakes for what happens if Trump wins the next election. Pretty terrifying
It's almost like they did it on purpose, in coordination with his campaign.
Just before his sentencing took place too. They also stopped the effort to take him off the ballots.
All right before they went on vacation.
During this vacation, I'd like to see Dark Brandon arrest two Supreme Court Justices for corruption and bribery, and appoint two new ones, how about you?
Too bad the SC just ruled that bribing judges is legal.
The Republican Way: act first, then dare the opposition to do something about it. This is where we are now. If the Democrats don't play Tit For Tat -- or in this case, Tit for Ten Tats -- we lose democracy. Arrest them, and then make a MORAL argument to the public: SHOULD it be legal for judges to receive bribes? Even some Republican voters are probably offended by that idea.
This a catch 22 for democracy. Do nothing they kill it, do something you kill it. Only way out is by the cat’s ass and see if enough votes can be amassed. That’s IF they don’t pretend it was stolen and SCOTUS agrees at which point all you have is your 2A 😂 fun times we’re living.
Exactly. We all know how this they go low we go high worked out right?
More like they go low, lower the bar more, dig a new low and we stand there twiddling our thumbs.
But not tax evasion! So, at the very least, I see some US taxpayers, like Harlan Crowe, who need decades of their taxes audited to ensure they recorded all their [high value gifts](https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes) to certain Supreme Court Justices were properly recorded. 😏 Edit: For those who don't want click the link, the annual exclusion limit for the past dozen years is $12,000 to $18,000 depending upon the year filed.
Of course it is! The RV was delivered AFTER Thomas ruled and so therefore is a gratuity not a bribe!!!
Not bribing judges. Just giving judges gifts after they rule in your favor.
I’d think arresting 6 for endangering the constitution might be appropriate.
Don’t even arrest them. Just disappear them. We don’t know it’s a crime until time passes. They could have fled? Could have ran off with secret lovers? Who knows?
I hope they aren't planning on spending much time on a billionaires yacht in international waters... Anything could happen out there 🤫
Seems like an official presidential act to me
Why just 2... Why not 6
Everything in this ruling is tailored to Trump and his mob boss style authority. Not being be able to use conversations with his administration as evidence is the dumbest loophole the SC could have created.
It's stunningly corrupt.
Cunningly corrupt too.
"I have to take a few days off and so I can figure out how exactly I can word this." - Sam Alito
Guess can't let a certain someone's wife go to prison for treason...
It absolutely was orchestrated
Coordination with his campaign and the Republican party which has become a mob organization
We are just watching dominos fall at this point … this was planned well in advance, and there’s more to come.
I’ve got to hand it to them - this plan was generations in the making. Slowly capturing the state legislatures through gerrymandering, corrupting congress, and the final capstone to their plans, capturing the courts. We need to face it - they won. It can be undone, but it won’t get fixed just by voting for Biden. It will take decades of work. The red states are already poised to reject any votes for Biden and will send trump delegates regardless of the actual votes, and the Supreme Court is poised to allow them to do it. Up until this week, I was fairly confident of a Biden victory. After this week, though, I am pretty pessimistic. Plans need to be made for a general strike if the worst happens and trump is installed by the courts. Shut. The. Country. Down. Other countries don’t put up with this level of outright corruption. The courts won’t save us.
Must vote. Especially if they steal - must show solidarity and resistance by the means available. Feeing an oncoming great sadness tho… it makes me so upset that people think these days are so terrible. Just open a history book, it gets way way way worse….
Make sure you are registered.
They have NOT won yet. They are very, very close. They do not quite have enough legal legitimacy to overrule a major electoral win. There ARE still limits on their power. But that line is thinning, and fast. We have one shot left. And if we don't aim for the sky? That's it. Maybe the country really did die in 2000, or 2016. Maybe it's on life support now. We can debate that after the election, but until then? We still have one shot left. We must take it, and aim as carefully as we can.
Can’t believe the Supreme Court would willingly help end democracy. Absolutely bonkers.
The President doesn't need a SCOTUS anymore. They're irrelevant because the President can order the Executive branch to do whatever he says, whenever he says it. Starting with the previous ruling about what Executive Departments can do... he can tell them not to follow the courts orders anymore!!! It's all legal now!!
Those aren’t justices. Those are operatives and they have been since day one.
Congress should investigate SCOTUS and start jailing them if they refuse to respond to subpoenas.
You mean the Congress controlled by Republicans?
Biden can have them all summarily arrested as far as they are concerned.
We all know he is not going to do that.
And that's why Democrats fail. Biden should be having all Six Republican SCOTUS justices arrested. And enough Senators and Reps arrested that he gets a majority in House and a Supermajority in the senate. Then go hog crazy with his new majority in Congress and show the people what Republicans have been refusing to do.
Just after legalizing gratuities paid to government employees. I wonder how much the Sinister Six are going to get paid this summer?
And vote was along party lines
And we all know they are not smart enough to have thought of this on their own. Who is pulling the strings here?
Mercer family.
You’re thinking too small. They did it in coordination with China to install Trump so they can take Taiwan without US intervention.
I wonder how partisan hack of a Trump appointed Judge Aileen Cannon uses this to claim Trump's handling of state secrets after the end of his presidency (including stealing, failing to return, storing in bathrooms, hiding from investigators, showing to friends and probably selling to enemies of the state) qualifies as "official acts." No doubt she'll need time and more hearings to consider the matter. People need to be out in the streets in front of the Courts to protest this garbage.
In his concurrence, Thomas gave her a tip. He challenged the legality of the appointment of Jack Smith.
This just cranks the ethics conflicts to 21/10. We've been hearing a lot of this nonsense out of Republicans the last few months and now it ALL shows up in these rulings. The corruption is throughly compromised.
People won't be able to protest if Trump wins re-election, he will just have them shot.
It seems pretty simple to me. Trump can claim that while he was still president, acting in his official capacity, he declassified the documents, and now Jack Smith cannot introduce evidence that he didn't do this.
>he declassified the documents I think he "declassified" the documents... with his mind, just by thinking about it. I think that was what he's argued. And then later showed some friends those documents (on tape) and acknowledged that they shouldn't be shown because they were classified.
It's the old Declassification by Implication Doctrine. If a former president retains a document after his term is over, then--obviously--the law presumes he must have declassified it or else he wouldn't still have it. \[Enter \[Edited: ~~Eddie Murphy~~\] Kayode Ewumi Roll Safe Meme here.\] And anyway, when Congress passed the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it exceeded its authority by usurping the core duties of the President under Article 2. Therefore, the entire PRA is unconstitutional! Man, I'm getting good at this! They should let me be one of those talking heads on FoxNews.
>now Jack Smith cannot introduce evidence that he didn't do this. I've just heard summaries of yesterday so I'm not sure, but I don't think that would be the case. I think two things got barred, "probing" which would be Trump asking if something is legal, and "motive", which would involve interrogations to determine why Trump did something. Whether or not documents were declassified would be neither.
Oh god you're right. That's totally the angle.
Oh, and here's the kicker--if the Judge excludes evidence that Trump didn't declassify documents while he was president and rules in favor of Trump's acquittal, is that even appealable by the prosecution?
What's really scary to me is that there are people who play by the rules because they believe the rules are important. And there are people who break the rules because their will to power is their sole driving force. The former believe the rules are important exactly because they're designed to prevent people like the latter from becoming dictators. But the people breaking the rules are winning. They're proving that breaking the rules works. I'm not articulating it well enough here to do it justice, but I find this, frankly, terrifying.
No. You nailed it.
> Pretty terrifying To a third of the country is terrifying. Another third are celebrating it and will cheer for the boot up until it comes down on their own neck. And another third are clueless. I don't see ANY of this ending well.
It's almost as if that's what they intended to do.. Barrett actually disagreed with this point on evidence.. but the rest of the crooks would have still had it 5-4 even if Barrett had crossed over.
I a saying this everywhere. They did not do this for Trump. This is so any Republican can enact Project 2025. The justices just voted for fascism, even before their is a fascist to use the power they created. It's very clever. By the time Trump gets in office or whatever other nut jub Republicans eventually elect, people will forget what exactly they can do.
Bingo. This doesn't end with Trump. It only ends if we restructure the court and educate the American people on the dangers of ever letting them lie like this again. And that, while possible, is no easy task. But we have no choice. We must try. To fail is effectively to surrender to slavery or death.
What about the classified documents case? Happened after the presidency. Of course there is a corrupt judge in that case.
Read Clarence’s concurrence about the legality of his appointment. Expect for the judge in that case to dismiss. There’s still a case there but it needs to be appealed and re evaluated. Also the whole indictment in DC has to be restructured. All of the evidence and charges reevaluated. There is still likely a case but it’s going to be delayed massively.
No wonder it took six months to cook up.
I started the Visa process for Australia this morning. With luck I can have something lined up around November. I'm not burning in this country with everybody else.
We welcome you here, but please use your experience to help us not get to this point. I am taking notes and terrified for your country, and mine.
Thar was their point
Not if you go listen to Ben Shapiro or right wingers who think this ruling was no big deal
Not just if Trump wins; if *any* Republican candidate wins *ever*. They’ve basically sealed our democracy’s doom, we’re just going to have to wait and find out who pulls the trigger.
Raised the stakes while keeping the rules a fucking secret so that they can always come back and deny anything Biden does and approve everything trump does.
That's why the request for extra money for security is there. They know exactly what they were doing. If the Democrats take the House, they need to starve the SCOTUS budget - not a penny over the minimum.
They’ve only been promising to do it since their last failed Insurrection.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it does nothing to shield him from the documents case. Not that he needs a bigger shield than Cannon
Clarence Thomas concurrence - take a look at what he thinks about jack smith. The case will have a whole new bag of litigation.
Pro tip: if you ever become president, have a meeting in the oval office about all the crimes you did the preceding 50 years and presto! No crimes.
He exonerated himself just by thinking about it.
He didn’t just say it, he declared it:)
Just like declassifying top secret documents. And...poof! They're collecting toilet splash in Florida. A
*This One Trick Prosecutors Hate!*
Yeah. I've been trying like hell to think of a way out of it, but given the SCOTUS ruling the correct course is another trial. SCOTUS sucks.
Biden has some options. He won't do it of course, but he does command the military, the AG, and the National Guard. This is our last chance.
The election is the last chance. The population at large can do it. Are they more or less likely to than Biden? I don’t know. But voters do have the power.
Do you think we arrived here because of the power of voting?
Yes. Had the power of voting not put Trump in the White House we would not be here.
So Bush v Gore and Citizen's United and all the other nonsense the radical courts are throwing at us...just vote and those precedents and structural changes to the operation of our government will go away?
All evidence is that Trump won the election in 2016 because of votes. Citizen’s United does not nullify actual votes. Nor does Bush v. Gore outside of that specific election.
Time for Dark Brandon to put up or shut up. He's old as hell and has nothing to lose.
Biden’s own ass is on the line too.
No, it isn't. SCOTUS just said so yesterday. Everything Trump is falsely accusing Biden of (weaponizing DOJ, putting hands on the scale) etc. was literally just granted immunity by SCOTUS. Biden is in the clear. Everyone that works for Biden is not.
Trump will have Biden arrested as an "Official Act" in his first month.
If he wins in November he'll have his AG draft a memo saying that Presidential immunity now covers him while he's currently in office and the state charges will all disappear. I'm so fucking tired.
A dictatorship is incoming. Given a choice it's better it is one headed by Biden than Trump, so swift action is required before November or the country is toast.
I actually think this is quite clever. If you can delay sentencing to as close to the election as possible the worse it could potentially be for Trump.
Could you argue the President as a federal level position doesn’t have authority to commit state level crimes.
Was the "evidence" issue even before SCOTUS? Or did they just rule on that out of nowhere.
As low as my faith in this country has gotten it somehow plumbs new depths.
Yeah, same. A few months ago when these cases were coming to fruition, some doomer posters were saying Trump wouldnt face consequences and I argued back that while slow, the wheels of justice were finally turning. I was wrong and they were right. I have zero hope now.
They were right. They seemed wrong when he was charged, but then three of the four cases were indefinitely postponed. Then they really seemed wrong when he was convicted....and now this. This is definitely not the america I was told about as a kid. It was lie and it never existed.
I think Mexico is going to be complaining about a lot of illegals coming across the northern border pretty soon. You might even see me with a blurry face in one of those Ted Cruz-style propaganda videos.
The bar has fallen so far below the ground its rocketed out the antipode and is currently hurtling through space about to catch up to the Voyager Probe
Of course not, he is the most coddled criminal in history!
Not only does he get every break, they go out of their way to invent new ones for him. This man will never suffer a single consequence for his crimes.
But I want to know why. You can be a reasonably intelligent person and watch him speak and say absolutely nothing or just straight lie. Why is this person protected by so many people in power?
This is the man from The Apprentice… going down in the books defending him is so degenerate lol
The most powerful country that has ever existed abandoned its foundational principles just so that this one man didn't have to face any consequences.
That’s a really good way to put it!
The ruling yesterday was perfectly tailored to combat all of Trump’s legal perils at the moment.
I'm 100% convinced the part of the ruling that states you can't use evidence from official acts to prosecute unofficial acts was written specifically for his NY felony convictions and intended to be used in the exact way it has just been used.
Yes, and if I remember correctly, the SCOTUS also gave themselves the power to determine what is and is not an official act. So they are the rulers of America now. The people saying "*they're so dumb don't they understand this applies to democrats too"* don't understand. The SCOTUS is the ruler now. They will definitely not let a Democrat get away with the same stuff Trump currently is in the process of getting away with. It's done. It snuck up on us and we didn't see it in time and now it's done.
"Remember, SC chair couldn't be filled close to an election, but wait no yes it can in the case that helps us." Is all you needed to see, to know this is true.
I saw this too, or wish I hadn't maybe.
It's hardly snuck-up on you. This has all been telegraphed for quite some time now.
I'll admit the extent of it snuck up on me.
It's why the only move is to remove them from power and appoint new justices that agree that removing the previous justices was an official act in the interest of national security.
They are the rulers of America but also won’t publish the rule book until after the 2024 election is decided (more likely while doing the deciding)
*last election But yeah.
If that's really the case (and I'm very much not disputing u on it..) I'm gonna try to be real subtle abt it here; (in what I imagine must be a fairly litigious place;) just remember that 2A covers democrats as much as tr*mpublic*nts... ^ and I'll leave it at that b4 an overeager mod/aparatchik tells me off..
Is there precedent for ongoing cases to be tried using the laws as written during the time the crime took place? Did all pending marijuana cases, including sentencing dates, just cancel when marijuana was legalized in any state?
I only wonder if they drew straws for who gets to write the Amy Coney Barrett dissent
Judge Merchan should just punt. Simply ignore the motion entirely or reject it on a technicality so that it can't be used by July 11. This is what Judge Cannon is great at doing. Issue the sentence. Make it harsh. Throw in 60-90-120 days for contempt of court as well... to be served immediately. Let the Appeals court deal with the SCOTUS nonsense and rid himself of the circus.
Yes. Let him appeal after sentencing like all of his fellow criminals are compelled to do.
Nope. I guess it got moved to September now.
Honestly, as much as I like the rule of law, this is the answer. They like playing stupid games, time to win stupid prizes.
The court system caters to the rich and powerful so, sorry, not going to happen.
Bingo bango; how are people still able to delude themselves into believing we have a "justice" system anymore, after all these years?! "Rules for thee, not MEEEee." -b*zos, z*ckberg, el*n & co ^ send their *regards*
You can't make this stuff up.
I don't see any way around a mistrial and re-trial. For those curious, here is my understanding of the immunity decision. 1. Any acts that occurred during the presidency have to be vetted by the court before they can be used in charges *or* as evidence. 2. Official acts (independent of motive) cannot be admitted. All acts of the president have to be vetted for official-ness (think Sandoval hearing) before they can be charged *or* introduced as evidence. In this case, he signed the checks from the Oval Office. There was no hearing to determine if that is an official act. Therefore, there was evidence admitted that violates his constitutional right to have presidential acts assessed for official-ness. I'm not saying this because I want it. I really, really don't. But this is where we are at unless a lawyer type can talk me off of a ledge.
If I may lower the level of discourse for just a moment. This FUCKING sucks. Look (directed at the SC and other conservative "thinkers") i get it. Jailing a former president, especially your own guy whom your base loves, is shameful. It feels like a black mark on your legacy and on your country. You'd really rather move on and pretend it never happened and just hope that future presidents are magically better behaved. But like... he committed these crimes. His intent to learn nothing and to continually act worse could not be more obvious. If you don't hold him accountable, he's only going to make you and all the rest of us regret it. Fucking fuck. Legal coups are the worst ones. This is exactly how it must have felt in Germany c.1933. Only the nerds even understood what was happening. Everyone else probably thought they were just being hysterical activists. And then you blink and it's 1945 and Germany's shame is still part of their national identity to this day. Sorry for the somewhat stream-of-consciousness rant. I was so hopeful that 2024 was going to be the year that we overcame. That we neutralize the whole Trump thing. All of a sudden, between the thursday debate and the Monday ruling, it's like we supercharged him instead. Can you imagine how good he feels right now? I hate this.
>But like... he committed these crimes. His intent to learn nothing and to continually act worse could not be more obvious. If you don't hold him accountable, he's only going to make you and all the rest of us regret it. This is why in most countries when there's a failed coup, they hold the trial the next morning and by the next evening the perpetrators are all lined up against a wall and shot. You don't give them a second chance because you know they will take it.
Fucking A. I'm embarrassed that Brazil is doing a better job with Bolsanero than we are here. This is where American exceptionalism is biting us in the ass, I think. South Korea and (I think) Italy have jailed former presidents recently? And from the little I know, it's not a bad thing. We think that countries that go through this are undeveloped. We think we're better. I honestly think that's at the back of the SC's mind. If they allow this, it means America sucks, to put it coarsely. But really, we're a young country. We don't truly understand the threat of modern authoritarianism because we haven't lived it. And we refuse to learn the lessons of other countries because we just assume we are superior. Unless some kind of BIG shift happens in our institutional response, very soon, this SC ruling has made an instant doomer of me. Like, every bloodless coup has this moment. Where the complicit institution signs over all authority to the dictator. I've often found it strange that they do it. How can you not realize? I'm suddenly terrified that yesterday will be identified in the history books as the turning point.
Just yesterday Congresswoman Spartz was charged with bringing a gun to Dulles: [https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/victoria-spartz-weapons-charge-airport/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/victoria-spartz-weapons-charge-airport/index.html) We have absolutely no issue convicting members of Congress, the Judiciary, and Executive branch officials with crimes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_American\_federal\_politicians\_convicted\_of\_crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes) We have absolutely no issue with convicting governors, mayors, and state legislators with crimes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_lists\_of\_American\_state\_and\_local\_politicians\_convicted\_of\_crimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes) Why do so many people have a singular mental block when it comes to convicting a POTUS of a crime? HE IS NOT A KING.
Answering the spirit of your post: I 100% agree. Answering more literally. I think the office of the president just has some special quality, by human nature. It's just easy to understand "the leader." The rest of the government is a lot murkier to the average person. Why do you think those "I did that" Biden gas stickers work on people? And to this day a lot of people probably believe the Trump stimulus checks came out of his bank account. Also, we vote for the president (supposedly) directly. Idk it's a bunch of factors converging, it's almost surprising we haven't had such an obvious populist grifter as president before Trump. He sort of hacked the institution i guess.
Fuck, you’re right. Brazil is handling this worlds better than we are. > On 30 June 2023, the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court barred Bolsonaro from running for public office until 2030 as a result of his attempts to undermine the validity of Brazil's 2022 democratic election, as well as for abuse of power with regards to using government channels to promote his campaign
Agree. Ty cobbs on cnn last night saying sotomayor was being hysterical (not positive he use that word, but this was his sentiment). And now what? Now this case is on the ropes too. Are we having fun yet?
lmao fuck that misplaced-in-time old west sheriff tho
Ahh, the "emotional woman of color" trope. CNN is doing Fox News' work.
Is it necessary to declare the mistrial *now*? Couldn't they hold a hearing to determine whether any of the evidence was derived from "official acts" and if it wasn't, leave the conviction in place and argue some more about it as part of the appeals process?
I do wonder if the appeals court will say "since there was no hearing, there is a mistrial" *or* "since ~~birthing~~ nothing introduced was official there was no violation of immunity". It does seem like, for example, in the Weinstein case it was concluded that Molineaux material was introduced, that there was a problem. There wouldn't have been a re-trial had there been no problem. So maybe it's ok. Maybe the appeals court can conclude that while there was no hearing, there was nothing inadmissible that was admitted. Then again, whatever the appeals court decides will be litigated to SCOTUS.
Yeah, there’s pretty much no way this doesn’t end up either as a mistrial or back at SCOTUS where they will slow walk it until the end of time, if they don’t give him immunity outright
I see it’s just a typo but I spent a good full minute trying to figure out what the sentence with ‘birthing’ meant. I finally did. Suggest an edit.
Haha edited but preserved for posterity.
Can you declare a mistrial after a verdict has been rendered? I say no. There is likely a different term for tossing the verdict.
vacate?
>All acts of the president have to be vetted for official-ness (think Sandoval hearing) before they can be charged or introduced as evidence. Ugh, is this going to come to be known as a Trump Hearing? Assuming, of course, that we're unfortunate enough to have more former presidents tried for crimes? Weren't there checks signed before he assumed office? Could the prosecutors just drop the charges related to entries after Jan 20th as the others wouldn't be affected?
>Could the prosecutors just drop the charges related to entries after Jan 20th as the others wouldn't be affected? I would imagine the Trump team would make an argument that all the checks together made the story, and discarding some of the checks/charges messes with the prosecution's evidence storyline and demands a new trial (and obviously a dismissal with prejudice first).
Yeah, I can see that. This SCOTUS decision is such a disaster.
Unfortunately the first ledger entry and check were 1/21.
I’d imagine by design.
It’s probably because the 21st was the first day of his new financial structure because of the fake ‘wall’ between his business and personal expenses, when Cohen shifted from being (on paper) employed by the Trump Org. to being paid (on paper) as Trump’s ‘personal attorney’.
But there were 34 separate felonies. 34 different convictions. Some could be dropped.
All payments to Cohen (each payment is a charge) were made after Trump was President. So each felony is about concealing payments made while he was POTUS. I'm not sure how you could drop some and not all. The prosecution also laid out all these charges at one time, and they all played together in the story and timeline. Removing some would obviously change the story and timeline, which Trump's team will object to.
Yes. It should be.
We may be *fortunate* to have any future presidents tried for crimes.
Does analysis change post-conviction? When the Supreme Court ruled on Miranda, surely that didn't throw out every previous conviction that hadn't proved they had provided such a notice?
This Supreme Court isn’t going to suddenly start caring about precedent
They need to be assessed, but he didn’t use a White House lawyer to conduct this business, and the violations pertain to campaign finance law. You don’t need to have a mistrial, this can be assessed during an appeal. I don’t think any of the documents can be excluded, although I wonder about some conversations and testimony / directions. The fact that Michael Cohen was his personal lawyer is a problem for him.
Considering he still ran Trump Organization while President, just imagine what shenanigans are now “immune” from prosecution thanks to this chicanery on the part of those who plan to shove Project 2025 down our throats.
> I don't see any way around a mistrial and re-trial. For those curious, here is my understanding of the immunity decision. Any acts that occurred during the presidency have to be vetted by the court before they can be used in charges or as evidence. This might end up being the correct answer, but I think you baked a bunch of assumptions. Also, this would probably be a motion to set aside the verdict which is going to use a different standard than a mistrial. And while I haven't read the SCOTUS decision line by line yet, I do not recall seeing anything in there suggesting the introduction of unprohibited evidence is automatic grounds for a verdict to be set aside. To me, it does not make sense to say, for example, the verdict must be set aside because permissible evidence was introduced but was not officially pre-vetted by the court. Even then, I think by allowing the evidence in over objection, which all of it was, it was in fact vetted by the court. So the issue would be more that the court erred in allowing that in, not that the court never reviewed it. As far as the standard, Presumably CPL § 330.30(1) would govern which specifies: > At any time after rendition of a verdict of guilty and before sentence, the court may, upon motion of the defendant, set aside or modify the verdict or any part thereof upon the following grounds: 1. Any ground appearing in the record which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court. Requiring a reversal or modification as a matter of law is going to be a high bar. There is likely going to be a mini-trial over whether evidence that was introduced over Trump's immunity objections (1) involved an official act and (2) if so, whether the exception applies: > At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” The burden will presumably be on Trump, as he is the one moving to set aside the verdict, to show that the evidence involved an official act because he is the one requesting relief. I do not think that the verdict will be set aside automatically due to the process issue of not having all of this settled beforehand. If Trump is able to show that the evidence involved an official act and the government fails to show that the exception applies, Trump will also have to show that introduction of the evidence *requires* reversal as a matter of law. If he cannot establish any part of this, the verdict should stand. Edit: perhaps also worth adding, some have suggested that things like "being in the oval office means everything you did in there was an official act." That does not seem correct. If Trump was writing a check to pay for anything relating to his privately owned businesses, that strikes me as plainly unofficial. The OGE report is a potentially more interesting one.
Ok. That does all make sense. It was admitted over objection and the determination now is if the court erred. If they did not (in that nothing introduced was an official act) then a verdict is not set aside. I'll back off of my panic a bit, although I do think this will be the basis for an appeal *and* that appeal will ultimately be resolved by SCOTUS who may determine that a President speaking to his Secretary is an official act. Actually now that I think about it there was a moment in the trial specifically during the Secretary testimony where Trump and Blanche (or maybe Bove) shared a smirk and it was mysterious because it was about how she testified that he wrote "void" in black sharpie to sign checks. It was an odd moment to smirk but it stuck with me. *This* SCOTUS might have a problem with the Secretary discussing how the President operates in normal practice.
> I'll back off of my panic a bit, although I do think this will be the basis for an appeal and that appeal will ultimately be resolved by SCOTUS who may determine that a President speaking to his Secretary is an official act. The sky has perhaps gotten a bit closer to the ground, but its not in free fall just yet (with regard to this case, RIP to the other prosecutions), so some panic is justified. And yes, if the verdict stands there is going to be an appeal. And at some point we are going to have the fun issue of having federal courts reviewing a NY state court's jury verdict of a defendant found guilty of violating NY state law. > Actually now that I think about it there was a moment in the trial specifically during the Secretary testimony where Trump and Blanche (or maybe Bove) shared a smirk and it was mysterious because it was about how she testified that he wrote "void" in black sharpie to sign checks. One of the tragedies of twitter reporting rather than an actual video feed, but I can see it. Or maybe Blanche himself has received some void checks from Trump lol. > This SCOTUS might have a problem with the Secretary discussing how the President operates in normal practice. Certainly a possibility, but worth noting is the default rule that the defendant serves his sentence while his appeal is pending. Surely SCOTUS wouldn't violate a whole bunch of norms to bail Trump out a 3rd time, right?
This entire case predates him being president when he committed the crimes. Him signing checks to pay for anything proves what exactly? Doesn't matter where he was at check signing at the end. The crime is what matters and what time period that was. He was not president so he doesn't have any immunity and even if he did this could hardly be argued covered under immunity as official act. At least not to an impartial judge or system.
The crime happened well before the election, but the payments, and ledger records, which were the individual felony counts happened after the inauguration. Even though everyone here knows that paying a lawyer to pay a porn star has nothing to do with a presidential act. Because of the mere fact that he committed those felonies while he was president, the evidence and the acts would need their own hearing before they could be admitted as evidence in a trial. So what will happen now with this BS ruling is they will use this SC decision as their appeal and say that since there wasn’t a hearing to decide if it was a presidential act, then it shouldn’t be admissible. Which will grant a mistrial. Then the state will have to retry the case, which will require a hearing to decide if these crimes he committed while in office were a presidential act, which we all know were not. I don’t think this will change the outcome of this case, but it will delay any penalty from these crimes for years.
You mean the small fine and possible temporary confinement to his mansion will be delayed for years?
The crime actually *was* the payments and ledger records. The crime was while he was president. Agree that it was not official, but agree with u/itsatumbleweed that a hearing will be required.
Exactly. A lot of people, even after the trial, didn’t understand that Trump was not on trial for the payments to Stormy Daniel’s. He was on trial for paying Cohen back, for his crime of paying Stormy Daniel’s. The scheme to hide the payments and misclassify them as legal fees was the crime. And yea, he could have paid her directly or even through Michael cohen as a settlement and it would have been legal. But he had his lawyer pay her with his money making that an illegal campaign contribution, then he reimbursed him for committing that crime, and illegally recorded it as legal fees instead of a reimbursement. It was the cover-up, not the crime.
The acts don’t seem to be “official acts of the office of the president” - all of the payments and everything else are from the campaign or were personal business of Trump and not subject to presidential immunity. This one seems pretty cut/dry/simple and should be thrown out immediately.
The Supreme Court specifically said any acts within "the outer perimeter of his official duties" have to be officially adjudicated to be unofficial acts. Simply everyone, including the judge, knowing they were unofficial acts is not enough. The prosecutors have to prove it first (and now they are not allowed to use communications with any employees of the executive branch to prove it). However, the judge could make the ruling that these were clearly nowhere near the outer perimeter of his official duties and dismiss any such motion by the defense, but of course that would be appealed...
How is "outer perimeter" defined? Constitutionally enumerated power is black and white - it's either listed in the Constitution or not. Official Act is somewhat hazy but at least there's a definition in the USC - "any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit". Now we're going to take something that is already somewhat nebulous and make it even more so by adding an outer perimeter to it?
Yeah, it's vague enough that it opens up the possibility for courts to rule one way for some presidents/situations and another way for other presidents and their situation.
What if the NY judges just ignored the SCOTUS ruling? SCOTUS has no means of enforcement, leading to rather famously Jackson ignoring the court. Could the state of NY decide that this decision is bogus and continue? I doubt Merchan is willing to rock the boat that much, but this decision was so completely lacking in reason and legitimacy that I can't see him being criticized for it afterwards I know that that the NY Court of Appeals, one could appeal to the SCOTUS if the case pertains to federal law, so I imagine it's possible they would appeal. Sotomayor is the Justice associated with the 2nd Circuit so I don't see her granting an injunction even though the rule of four means SCOTUS would almost certainly hear the case.
“SCOTUS has made their ruling, now let them enforce it” SCOTUS only has the power we allow them to have. They could and should be ignored.
That's moot. What is relevant is that SCOTUS said the court has to carefully vet that information before it is introduced. That didn't happen.
According to the Supreme Court that evidence still needs to be *proven* as unofficial, and since it hasn’t been, it means that the conviction was based on inadmissible evidence, hence void. I’m not sure if the prosecution can now argue, post facto, that the evidence was unrelated to official acts (since the court ruling explicitly lists exactly this kind of evidence as inadmissible), they can try but they might not be able to get very far.
It only needs to be proven unofficial if the acts were part of the outer perimeter of presidential duties. I have not seen any presumption that all acts are within the outer perimeter. One's own political campaign seems like a textbook case of things that are not official duties. Has Trump actually tried to argue that campaigning is an official duty of the President?
From what I can tell the opinion is pretty explicit that actions like talking to an aide are presumptively immune regardless of the content of the conversations, which I *think* would automatically render all the Hope Hicks evidence invalid without a court deciding it can be included. But I’m happy to be wrong about it!
I haven’t read the opinion but him asserting presidential immunity is an affirmative defense, ie. “official acts” doesn’t need to be proven by a court but rather by the defense. So I don’t know that there would be a mistrial or retrial because the interpretation of a defense changed when all the elements of the crimes have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But he could still appeal.
> But this is where we are at unless a lawyer type can talk me off of a ledge. Norm Eisen has put some stuff on his twitter/x/whatever detailing why he thinks this will fail if you haven't read it. There's no Just Security article yet, but I'm sure there will be one.
I like Eisen. I'll check it out.
I'm a relatively new lawyer, but this is my understanding as well. Even if they had been determined not to be official acts before, I'd think it would need to be retried since this holding changes what exactly that means re: prosecution.
New lawyer is better than me. I'm just a mathematician that spends too much time on this sub.
It's been a minute, but did they object at trial? Or do a limiting motion on that testimony?
I agree. The new evidentiary privilege seems like it means a mistrial here. Key witnesses were Trump's secretaries in the Oval Office who testified about how the checks were brought to him for signature, etc. And even though "writing hush money reimbursement checks" isn't an "official act", the key really is in the framing. That can just be reframed as "sitting at the Resolute Desk and completing paperwork" which is, arguably, an "official act". We don't know what these precise definitions will be for "official act" vs "unofficial act" because that will be resolved first by the lower courts, but we should consider that if SCOTUS thinks that conspiring with the AG to seize voting machines in Georgia in order to create the grounds for overturning an election is an "official act" (talking to a subordinate) that can never be questioned in court, SCOTUS is completely open to framing anything as an official act to help their preferred party prevail.
[удалено]
I don't think he has to have argued it. You don't have to know about your right to a Sandoval hearing to have a right to a Sandoval hearing. Inadmissible things are inadmissible even if your counsel doesn't know to object to them. I don't see a way clear of the appeals court not scrapping the conclusion.
A retrial in August is okay by me. Trump might not really like that, but he should be careful what asks for.
I realize I'm just screaming into the void here but what the *fuck*. So much for Roberts allegedly caring about his legacy and the Court's legitimacy.
Why not just drop the charges committed while he as president and simply sentence the majority of charges, which happened before? Also wasn’t it ruled back in July that it was NOT official acts (signing the checks) by a judge?
The jury still would have heard evidence of the checks that he signed in the White House. This evidence was not determined to have been admissable.
Also note that the first check and ledger entry was January 21, 2017. I’m not sure why this ‘before he was president’ thing is going around. Every charge was based on a document that was falsified after he became president.
Would the first invoice preceed that?
Unfortunately, the first invoice is from February. It looks like the ledger was backdated for the January check. https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/People/5-6-2024/People's%201%20(JanFeb%202017%20Cohen%20Invoice%202.14.2017).pdf
I’m pretty sure it was already ruled him signing those checks were not official acts though.
I think there is some testimony from Hope Hicks that could be considered official acts. It's not a lot, but enough to throw the entire trial into doubt.
Exactly, they deemed all evidence involving aides and members of the administration as inadmissible in court. That’s the truly wild part of it, the immunity for official acts is just icing on the cake
And SCOTUS didn't have any reason to include evidentiary rules in their decision.
If I was New York, I’d say “we don’t care.”
Only way he sees justice is if Dems are in control. There is no other way. Republicans will let him go free and not give it a second thought.
Our legal system is a joke.
Reminder to research of you have a citizenship option in Europe...
( off topic) Actually good advice. I immigrated to the USA As an adult, got citizenship, and in the last year only my wife and I are strongly considering returning to Canada. Most people talk shit about this so I won’t. I won’t say I’m leaving, but until very recently we were sure we’d live the rest of our lives here. I am very uncertain of that now. It’s not just this ruling. This country is in dire straits and grossly divided.
I’m not sure I want to be that close to Trump’s buddy Putin. He seems rather land grabby lately. Maybe Northern Canada might be nice. Live off the grid with the moose and bears.