Trump immunity case

[seer]

New York v. Trump: Merchan delays sentencing hearing until September

Merchan said Trump's sentencing has been delayed until Sept.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new...cing-september

[Ronson]

Sauer's answer is that it could be an official act, but, as he clarified, "It would depend on the hypothetical. We can see that could well be an official act."

In other words, there needs to be more to it than the president waking up one day and arbitrarily deciding that his political rival is a traitor in need of killin'.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I don't believe Trump (or any POTUS) could just have a citizen killed on a whim. Democrats could have made a big deal out of the Soleimani assassination if they dared, but what American would want to take sides with Iran?

[Ronson]

New York v. Trump: Merchan delays sentencing hearing until September

Merchan said Trump's sentencing has been delayed until Sept.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new...cing-september

Interesting. One can read all sorts of things into the September timing of that decision.

[RumTumTugger]

Interesting. One can read all sorts of things into the September timing of that decision.

Yep that is when early voting and mail in ballots starts in most States also.

[firstfloor]

Well, thank you for the agreement, but your second half of your post seems to be highly confused. The Chevron Defense is, in fact, a perfect case study in how Democrats will abuse this 'official acts immunity' defense, and it is good that it is gone and that the government is not given more power in that case (just like it is bad that it is being given more power here under this immunity decision).

Deference, not defense. Died age 40!

[seer]

Interesting. One can read all sorts of things into the September timing of that decision.

Like they know that Trump will win and they don't want the Trump DoJ looking into them?

[seanD]

Like they know that Trump will win and they don't want the Trump DoJ looking into them?

Or they know what the sentence will be because we all know this was collusion from the start, and so they want the sentence to be as late as possible into the election so that it's impossible for the RNC to adjust to the situation? They'll essentially have a candidate sitting in prison that people are voting for.

[CivilDiscourse]

Or they know what the sentence will be because we all know this was collusion from the start, and so they want the sentence to be as late as possible into the election so that it's impossible for the RNC to adjust to the situation? They'll essentially have a candidate sitting in prison that people are voting for.

I expect, that if this was the plan, it would need to be a near-max sentence (4 years), to ensure Trump was effectively neutered. If it was something akin go 90 days or a few months of actual jail, I expect it would backfire spectacularly and probably do more to actually energize MORE people to vote for him.

However, I expect the real reason is that there is no rush. They have the primary outcome (guilty verdict) and the sentencing is less important.

[seanD]

I expect, that if this was the plan, it would need to be a near-max sentence (4 years), to ensure Trump was effectively neutered. If it was something akin go 90 days or a few months of actual jail, I expect it would backfire spectacularly and probably do more to actually energize MORE people to vote for him.

However, I expect the real reason is that there is no rush. They have the primary outcome (guilty verdict) and the sentencing is less important.

The guilty verdict is doing nothing but helping Trump. They can't be that dumb not to know that. And whatever guilty verdict they believe gives them any sort of upper-hand has been nullified by what's recently happening to his opponent.

[CivilDiscourse]

The guilty verdict is doing nothing but helping Trump. They can't be that dumb not to know that. And whatever guilty verdict they believe gives them any sort of upper-hand has been nullified by what's recently happening to his opponent.

And, if that's the case, then it would also make sense to delay the sentencing.

[seanD]

And, if that's the case, then it would also make sense to delay the sentencing.

I don't see your point.

[firstfloor]

I am sorry to say that the USA has finally gone the way of so many other countries and failed to live up to its early promise. No longer the example that others should follow.

[NorrinRadd]

Come on, dude, you can't be serious. Official duties of the president are those that are explicitly described in the Constitution. This idea that any arbitrary thing the president does is now protected by this ruling as an "official duty" is stupid.

In a brief interview with Glenn Beck, Dersh, who predicted and agreed with the decision, did note that there is a sense in which anything a President does is done "as President." But he said it is now up to the lower courts (and likely later the SCOTUS) to more clearly delineate "core," "non-core but official," and "unofficial or personal."

[NorrinRadd]

According to who?

According to the ruling, at least implicitly. The ruling distinguishes among three different tiers:

Here the Court separated cases into actions taken in core areas of executive authority, official actions taken outside those core areas, and unofficial actions. Actions deemed personal or unofficial are not protected under this ruling.

(Turley.)

[Mountain Man]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I don't believe Trump (or any POTUS) could just have a citizen killed on a whim. Democrats could have made a big deal out of the Soleimani assassination if they dared, but what American would want to take sides with Iran?

The debate is basically this:

What the Supreme Court said: The president can not be prosecuted for performing official duties.

What liberals morons heard: The president can break the law with impunity, and ain't nothin' you can do about it!