In victory for Trump, judge delays criminal sentencing until after U.S. election

[CdnFox]

In victory for Trump, judge delays criminal sentencing until after U.S. election | CBC News

Trump, the Republican nominee for president, had previously been scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 18. His lawyers in August asked Justice Juan Merchan to push back his sentencing date until after the vote, citing "naked election-interference objectives."

Merchan said on Friday he now planned to sentence Trump on Nov. 26, unless the case is dismissed before then.

"The imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance — however unwarranted — that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching presidential election in which the defendant is a candidate," the judge wrote

Trump's lawyers in August argued there would not be enough time before the sentencing for the defence to potentially appeal Merchan's forthcoming ruling on Trump's request to overturn the conviction due to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision on presidential immunity.

Merchan had been scheduled to rule on that motion on Sept. 16. He wrote on Friday he now plans to rule on that motion on Nov. 12.

 

 

So to paraphrase the article, the judge wants to make sure that none of this ever could possibly be seen as partisan! Also it's probably going to get thrown out because it wasn't legit to begin with.    

That judge. This whole thing was absolutely a travesty. Bad as some of the things trump did have been ,bad as the fbi was, etc etc this really is true banana republic communist country bullcrap. 

 

 

[NAME REMOVED]

So if Trump wins, he will just pardon himself.

Just like Hitler.

[gatomontes99]

It is no coincidence that he did this the day after that DOJ Comms guy talked all that sh1t about the case.

[myata]

In the loss for the rule of law. Any mob boss nominating themselves would expect nothing less. A set precedent.

[Matthew]

It's fair. This judge already did a decent job of keeping the trial going. Prosecutors got their convictions. Sentencing a presidential candidate a month or so before an election would have the appearance of interference.

Edited September 7, 2024 by Matthew

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

So if Trump wins, he will just pardon himself.

Just like Hitler.

????? Wait, when did hitler "pardon himself"? 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

It is no coincidence that he did this the day after that DOJ Comms guy talked all that sh1t about the case.

Exactly  or that he felt the need to actually comment specifically on how the case was NOT politically motivated, honest! 

They're reading the polls and they know that any attempt to lock him in jail during the election would create a complete crapstorm ESPECIALLY seeing as it looks like he has a very good chance at appeal and they DEFINITELY want to put him in jail as a warning to their other political opponents. 

So they've pushed it back. 

[Legato]

10 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

So if Trump wins, he will just pardon himself.

Just like Hitler.

Hello Mr. Godwin.

[robosmith]

10 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

So if Trump wins, he will just pardon himself.

Just like Hitler.

It is a NYS case. At worst Trump could ONLY DELAY facing the music and hope an appeals court rules in his favor in the mean time. No pardons for state convictions by POTUS.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

It is no coincidence that he did this the day after that DOJ Comms guy talked all that sh1t about the case.

Sure. Your conspiracy theories have gone into overdrive. LMAO

Merchan has explained the reasons he delayed the sentencing. SCOTUS immunity decision greatly complicated the issue.

[Nationalist]

Lol...another win.

[Fluffypants]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Sure. Your conspiracy theories have gone into overdrive. LMAO

Merchan has explained the reasons he delayed the sentencing. SCOTUS immunity decision greatly complicated the issue.

Merchan and Bragg agreed to this because every thing they have done to Trump has just made him stronger and got him more votes you sentence him and you just handed him the keys to the White house. If he gave him a prison sentence it would strengthen his base and garner more votes due to the fact the entire case was BS and if they gave him a slap on the wrist the Left wing would be upset and might not come out to vote. So doing nothing was the best option.

[NAME REMOVED]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

It is a NYS case. At worst Trump could ONLY DELAY facing the music and hope an appeals court rules in his favor in the mean time. No pardons for state convictions by POTUS.

Trump will have that changed if elected.

[herbie]

Maybe he decided that stopping Americans from having the choice to vote for a convicted criminal pervert fraud violated their constitutional rights.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

It is a NYS case. At worst Trump could ONLY DELAY facing the music and hope an appeals court rules in his favor in the mean time. No pardons for state convictions by POTUS.

No, that's not true.

The only way it is a felony is if the jury believed that another crime had taken place which was never proved. Those crimes are all federal crimes. So if trump pardons himself from those crimes, they cannot be used in the new York case and he gets off.

This is also basically the premise of his appeal, which is that he can't be charged for those crimes based on the supreme court ruling regarding charging presidents. If he wins that one he won't even have to pardon himself

15 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Trump will have that changed if elected.

If it isn't already gone by then. Like I said, that supreme court decision basically achieves the same thing. But if they decide that it doesn't cover that then yes absolutely he can pardon himself and then the conviction falls apart

[NAME REMOVED]

47 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If it isn't already gone by then. Like I said, that supreme court decision basically achieves the same thing. But if they decide that it doesn't cover that then yes absolutely he can pardon himself and then the conviction falls apart

Since Trump stacked the Supreme Court with two 'yes' people  and one that was corrupt for years (Thomas), that may happen

Once again, Trump emulates his favortie fellow ethic German autocrat, Adolf Hitler

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Since Trump stacked the Supreme Court with two 'yes' people  and one that was corrupt for years (Thomas), that may happen

 

Yeah - that's not what 'stacking' is   LOLOLOL  sorry kid  

Trump appointed two supreme court justices, but he doesn't control them, they don't do what they're told, no stacking occurred. Stacking is what the dems have been threatening to do, where you appoint additional positions so that you can flood the court with people that you think will support you in excess of what normally would be allocated for political purposes. 

However the decision has already been reached by the courts. That's not a "might happen", that's an "already happened".  The courts have ruled that a president cannot be tried by a court for exercising powers etc and it follows that you cannot be tried indirectly either which is what the new york case did.  Remember the new york case was ONLY a felony if the jurors BELIEVED that it happened to support a DIFFERENT felony.  Well if that different felony doesn't exist for the president then it all goes out the window. 

There are other grounds for appeal but that one's probably enough to get it done. and if they determine that somehow those other unproven felonies would not have fallen under his presidential protection then he can pardon himself and achieve the same thing, 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Fluffypants said:

Merchan and Bragg agreed to this because every thing they have done to Trump has just made him stronger and got him more votes you sentence him and you just handed him the keys to the White house. If he gave him a prison sentence it would strengthen his base and garner more votes due to the fact the entire case was BS and if they gave him a slap on the wrist the Left wing would be upset and might not come out to vote. So doing nothing was the best option.

^Pure speculation with ZERO evidence. Merchan knows the truth and all you got is fantasies.

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Trump will have that changed if elected.

Would require a Constitutional amendment and he ain't going to get that done.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

No, that's not true.

The only way it is a felony is if the jury believed that another crime had taken place which was never proved. Those crimes are all federal crimes. So if trump pardons himself from those crimes, they cannot be used in the new York case and he gets off.

This is also basically the premise of his appeal, which is that he can't be charged for those crimes based on the supreme court ruling regarding charging presidents. If he wins that one he won't even have to pardon himself

If it isn't already gone by then. Like I said, that supreme court decision basically achieves the same thing. But if they decide that it doesn't cover that then yes absolutely he can pardon himself and then the conviction falls apart

A POTUS pardoning himself is not even a sure thing. There are strong arguments that giving a pardon only applies to separate individual.

 

Why a Self-Pardon Is Not Constitutional

Just Security

https://www.justsecurity.org › why-a-self-pardon-is-not...

 

 

 

 

Nov 24, 2020 — Here's why. The idea that President Trump would try to pardon himself is hardly fanciful. Back in 2018, when the Mueller investigation was ...

 

 

The Case Against a Presidential Self-Pardon

Constitutional Accountability Center

https://www.theusconstitution.org › Blog

 

 

 

 

Jan 12, 2021 — Last month, President Trump used the presidential pardon power enshrined in the Constitution to pardon Roger Stone, George Papadopoulos, ...

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

"The imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance — however unwarranted — that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching presidential election in which the defendant is a candidate," the judge wrote

With those two words he just converted the NY State Supreme Court into Comedy Central. 

Richard Simmons *sashays in, flippantly wafting feathers away from his brow*: "I'm going to wear this manly pink chiffon hat to dispel any appearance - however unwarranted - that I'm gay."

Edited September 7, 2024 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

A POTUS pardoning himself is not even a sure thing. There are strong arguments that giving a pardon only applies to separate individual.

Well they could make thar argument of course.  But i suspect the supreme court would be more sympathetic to Trump's arguments.  Still, you never know. 

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

With those two words he just converted the NY State Supreme Court into Comedy Central. 

 

For a  justice to even say that it's practically an admission.

Edited September 8, 2024 by CdnFox

[SpankyMcFarland]

In one way it isn’t a win. AFAIK delaying sentencing means the Supreme Court cannot become involved again with this case until after the election. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

In one way it isn’t a win. AFAIK delaying sentencing means the Supreme Court cannot become involved again with this case until after the election. 

I'm not sure that's true - the judge specifically stated this would give time for the appeals to weigh in. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - that's not what 'stacking' is   LOLOLOL  sorry kid  

Trump appointed two supreme court justices, but he doesn't control them, they don't do what they're told, no stacking occurred.

Did he not appoint three justices? Those advising him had a very clear idea of their judicial philosophy as we saw with abortion. 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Did he not appoint three justices?

You're right - i completely forgot about Niel Gorsuch at the beginning of his term. 

Quote

Those advising him had a very clear idea of their judicial philosophy as we saw with abortion. 

For sure. 

A lot of people think that if a president wants a certain type of judge or wants them to have a certain opinion on something that they go and talk to them and say do this or the like. But in reality what they do is they look at their previous decisions and stances and then pick one that happens to already think like they do if there's one available.

Roe versus Wade was always controversial and a lot of Legal experts had questioned whether or not the decision was right. If you want to get rid of abortion as a federal issue and return it to the states it's not hard to find candidates who have spoken out against the decision and feel it was the wrong one. You appoint them if a position becomes available.  But even so, there's NO guarantee that a case will come before them that is relevant OR that the evidence in the case won't lead them in a different direction.