Jump to content

Trump Seeks Dismissal of New York Charges Following Supreme Court Immunity Ruling


Recommended Posts

Posted

image.png.f3604a358b71ad8745664f4882fb30bb.png

 

Former President Donald Trump has formally requested the dismissal of his criminal conviction, leveraging the Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity. In a 52-page brief made public on Thursday, Trump's legal team argues that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office (DANY) improperly introduced evidence protected by presidential immunity, treating Trump “unfairly and unlawfully.”

 

The brief, submitted by Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, urges New York Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, to overturn the guilty verdict and dismiss last year’s indictment. The attorneys assert, “The record is clear: DANY was wrong, very wrong,” and call on the court to rectify these purported injustices in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

In late May, a New York jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records, with the intent to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. The charges stem from Trump’s reimbursement of his then-fixer, Michael Cohen, for a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged affair. Trump has consistently denied any affair.

 

The recent Supreme Court decision, which establishes presumptive criminal immunity for presidents’ official acts, offers Trump a new avenue to challenge his verdict. While Trump did not previously claim immunity from the hush money charges themselves, the ruling prevents prosecutors from using protected acts as evidence, even if the charges relate to unofficial conduct.

 

Trump’s lawyers argue that prosecutors improperly introduced evidence of official acts during his trial and the grand jury proceedings that led to his indictment. This evidence includes one of Trump’s government ethics forms, social media posts made while in office, and testimony from two White House aides. The attorneys maintain that much of this evidence involved “core” executive functions, which the Supreme Court has deemed absolutely protected.

 

“To vindicate the Presidential immunity doctrine, and protect the interests implicated by its underpinnings, the jury’s verdicts must be vacated and the Indictment dismissed,” Trump’s legal team stated in the brief.

 

The brief was filed on Wednesday, coinciding with Trump’s originally scheduled sentencing date. Judge Merchan postponed the sentencing until September 18 to consider the immunity argument. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which agreed to the delay, has indicated it believes the conviction should remain intact. Bragg’s office is expected to respond in court filings later this month.

 

Credit: Hill 2024-07-13

 

news-logo-btm.jpg

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

  • Haha 2
Posted

Everything hangs on what's an official act and what isn't. And perhaps a particular act may be 'official' in one context and not in another ...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

Trump is a chump. Liar, cheater, con-man, thief. Insurrectionist, coward, abusive, abrasive, feeble minded, uneducated dip 💩. Anyone supporting this first class a-hole is insane. :coffee1:

 

biden is senile, ruler of the world... yeah better choice, lol

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

It's no longer about Politics. It's about morality.

 

That anyone can follow a convicted felon who publically mocks handicapped people, a racist, bigoted misogynist who speaks like a 4th grader, and repeatedly cheats on his wives, boggles the mind. It's no longer about politics. Your morals suck.
Can you really call yourselves the Party of Family Values with a straight face?

 

(If you're going to quote me or reply, try hard not to mention Obama or Clinton in your argument...  I know it's going to be difficult.)

 

 

 

image.jpeg

what racism what bigotry? got quotes?

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, FolkGuitar said:

who speaks like a 4th grader, 

 

(If you're going to quote me or reply, try hard not to mention Obama or Clinton in your argument...  I know it's going to be difficult.)

 

 

 

 

at least he can speak....

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

Just curious, what was so bad about his last term?  Was it Putin staying in his lane, Hamas staying in Gaza, the nuclear clock staying still, inflation staying low, net illegal immigration going to zero, or what?  Or just that syndrome that we're not allowed to mention?

 

Maybe what is going on now is because trump was kissing xss with all those bad people?

Who says these things would not have happened if he would have got a second term?

Because of his inactions the US was seen as weak?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

s I remember this:

 

Ex-Prosecutor Flags Hope Hicks' Testimony As 'Body Blow' To Trump In Hush Money Trial

Updated 4 May 2024·

 

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann weighed in on Hope Hicks’ “devastating” testimony Friday after the ex-Donald Trump spokesperson broke down in tears during the presidential candidate’s hush money trial in New York.

 

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ex-prosecutor-flags-hope-hicks-094804982.html

 

********

 

Ms. Hicks White House testimony in 2018 is part of what the Trump team says should be thrown out.

 

The motion also involves testimony and documents provided to the Grand Jury before the indictment.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, jvs said:

Maybe what is going on now is because trump was kissing xss with all those bad people?

Who says these things would not have happened if he would have got a second term?

Because of his inactions the US was seen as weak?

 

I don't propose to discuss hypotheticals.  Just what actually happened.  In spite of mean tweets, I was pretty pleased with Trump's term.


Just like I was pleased with Clinton's term, in spite of the lies and the mongering.

 

Edit:  Speaking of kissing the butts of bad people, how would you characterize this?

 

President Trump reportedly looked directly at the Taliban leader and warned him, “If you harm a hair on a single American, I’m gonna kill you.”

 

He then reached into his pocket, pulled out a satellite image of the Taliban leader’s home, handed it to him, and left the room without another word.

 

“Sure enough, for 18 months, not a single American was killed in Afghanistan,” Hunt said. “That is the definition of strength; that’s what I’m talking about.”

 

That's from a Sage Steele interview with Byron Donalds and Wesley Hunt, who probably should despise Trump if he's a racist.  They're all Black.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, jvs said:

Maybe what is going on now is because trump was kissing xss with all those bad people?

Who says these things would not have happened if he would have got a second term?

Because of his inactions the US was seen as weak?

the nonstop negative left wing bias media all the bitching ands squabbling from the Dems about Trump made USA look weak, they made us look a laughing stock, same as the uk over Brexit... 2 countries that preach  about 'democracy' couldn't accept their own!!

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Posted

How Trump’s Plan to Secretly Meet With the Taliban Came Together, and Fell Apart

Published Sept. 8, 2019
Updated Aug. 29, 2021

 

In the days that followed, Mr. Trump came up with an even more remarkable idea — he would not only bring the Taliban to Washington, but to Camp David, the crown jewel of the American presidency.

 

Before the end of the meeting, Mr. Khalilzad brought up the idea of a Taliban trip to Washington. Taliban leaders said they accepted the idea — as long as the visit came after the deal was announced.

 

But little was made of that at the time. The endgame of the talks seemed near, if not the timetable. Only then came Mr. Trump’s tweets on Saturday night disclosing that he had invited the Taliban and Mr. Ghani to Camp David — but called it off, citing the bombing.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/world/asia/afghanistan-trump-camp-david-taliban.html

 

 

Posted
5 hours ago, wombat said:

So in other words...normal?

It depends on who is doing the classifying.

 

There is normal, sub normal and abnormal. Take your pick.

 

There will be somebody coming along who will say that you are wrong, whatever choice you make.

 

My choice for Trump would be sub normal.

  • Agree 1
Posted
5 hours ago, thaipo7 said:

Cryingdick and Skeptic are both wrong.  The White House through the corrupt AG Garland with Biden above them have been in meeting with the NY, GA, DC Attorney Generals, Federal Circuit Judges, state AGs and DAs and finally down to the Judges in the trials have all colluded to find Trump guilty of anything.  JUST MAKE SURE HE WILL NOT BE ABLE RUN AGAINST BIDEN.  The whole process is controlled from the White House down to the Judge of the trial by Democrats.  I don't know where you guys are located.  The trial where Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies went like this.  Many previous prosecutors looked at this case and saw nothing there.  Bragg comes along, takes a look at the non-disclosure agreement against Daniels and Trump.  It was dead because it was past the statute of limitations.  No case here.  BUT Democrat Bragg comes up with this idea to change the non-disclosure agreement name to "Hush Money."  Hush money sounds more sinister than nondisclosure agreement.  These agreements are done a few hundred times a day.  Then we have Daniels that breaks the terms of the nondisclosure agreement but Trump is charged.  Why?  Because he is Trump and the leading contender against Biden for President in 2024.  On top of this, a nondisclosure agreement is a misdemeanor and has very little punishment if any at all.  But change the name to Hush Money and raise it from a misdemeanor to a felony, now you can put someone in jail.  Now you want to make sure that a jury will find at least one felony will be found guilty.  So Bragg writes up this one felony into 34 charges.  This greatly gives you the odds of a conviction of at least one charge.  Then we make sure the case is heard before a jury where the jury pool voted 96% Democrat in the last election.  This is Manhattan in NY.  Plus they do not select the next judge in order to try the case.  They chose Merchan who is a know Trump hater who has faced Trump in trials in Manhattan before.  You tell me if this is not the way Putin would do it to someone he wants eliminated in Russia.  This is how it is done.  Do you know that judge Merchan's daughter raised over $100 million by citing her Dad and this case against Trump to be used in elections where the Democrat may not have the sources to win the election.  If all of this sound fair to you then you are member of the Marxist Democrat Party of the US.  All on the Internet.  CNN, MSNBC, CBS and the other controlled media did not report this.  We do not have but a few journalist in the US.  They just sit at their desk and wait for the phone to ring and are told what to put in print or the nightly news.  This is not freedom.  It is a Police State.  I am not a typist and I know there are wrong keys that have been hit.

But that is only your opinion, and is worth the same as anybody that would disagree with you.

  • Love It 1
Posted
1 hour ago, FolkGuitar said:

It's no longer about Politics. It's about morality.

 

That anyone can follow a convicted felon who publically mocks handicapped people, a racist, bigoted misogynist who speaks like a 4th grader, and repeatedly cheats on his wives, boggles the mind. It's no longer about politics. Your morals suck.
Can you really call yourselves the Party of Family Values with a straight face?

 

(If you're going to quote me or reply, try hard not to mention Obama or Clinton in your argument...  I know it's going to be difficult.)

 

 

 

image.jpeg

Does the party of law and order sound better?

Posted
3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But that is only your opinion, and is worth the same as anybody that would disagree with you.

It's not even his own opinion.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

at least he can speak....

 

Do we interpret your comment to mean that you will vote for anyone who can speak, regardless of the fact that they are convicted felons? Found guilty by many different juries of his peers in American courts of law. Not 'fake news.' American law courts. He's a criminal.
If you think it's OK to follow a known criminal who has been found guilty of fraud, sexual improprieties, failure to fill or pay contracts, cheating on his spouse... sorry, but the list can just go on and on says more about your morals. You are not someone I would want around my children.

  • Agree 2
Posted
1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

the nonstop negative left wing bias media all the bitching ands squabbling from the Dems about Trump made USA look weak, they made us look a laughing stock, same as the uk over Brexit... 2 countries that preach  about 'democracy' couldn't accept their own!!

 

Trump and the Republican Party needed no outside help to make America look bad. They managed to do it very well without any.  But I'm pretty lucky. I'm old. I'll be dead in a few years and won't have to witness the long-term results if he gets elected again.

  • Sad 1
  • Thumbs Up 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...