Trump’s lawyers ask judge to halt Friday’s hush money case sentencing while they appeal to block it

Magats_Love_NHB

Magats_Love_NHB

Let It Burn!
apnews.com

Trump’s lawyers ask judge to halt Friday's hush money case sentencing while they appeal to block it

President-elect Donald Trump has asked a judge to halt this week’s sentencing in his New York hush money case while he appeals a ruling upholding the verdict.
apnews.com apnews.com

NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump on Monday moved to indefinitely postpone this week’s sentencing in his hush money case as he appeals a ruling that upheld the verdict and put him on course to be the first president to take office convicted of crimes.

Trump’s lawyers say the case should be put on hold automatically while they ask a New York appeals court to reverse Judge Juan M. Merchan’s decision last week, which set the case for sentencing on Friday — little more than a week before his inauguration.

If sentencing proceeds as scheduled, Trump’s lawyers argued, he will be appealing the verdict while in office and will be “forced to deal with criminal proceedings for years to come.” They raised an improbable scenario in which, if Trump wins his appeal, he could be then subjected to another criminal trial while in office.

Merchan rejected Trump’s bid to throw out the verdict in light of his impending return to the White House but signaled that he is not likely to sentence the Republican to any punishment for his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that it “would be the end of the Presidency as we know it” if the ruling is allowed to stand.

snip
 
He’s already been found guilty and is demanding the judge give him no sentence for the crimes he committed. Congratulations Republicans you knowingly elected a convicted criminal and civilly convicted rapist that declares he is above the law.
 
Trump's lawyers are just collecting fuel to use in the appeal. The harder Merchan pushes this, the more likely the appeals court will toss the entire case out, which they appear to have every inclination of doing at this point.

lawandcrime.com

Judges appear receptive to Trump arguments in civil fraud case appeal, AG repeatedly cut off

The lawyer speaking for the attorney general's office was cut off before she could even get her first sentence out – by a judge who essentially ridiculed the state's position.
lawandcrime.com lawandcrime.com


 
T. A. Gardner said:
Trump's lawyers are just collecting fuel to use in the appeal. The harder Merchan pushes this, the more likely the appeals court will toss the entire case out, which they appear to have every inclination of doing at this point.

lawandcrime.com

Judges appear receptive to Trump arguments in civil fraud case appeal, AG repeatedly cut off

The lawyer speaking for the attorney general's office was cut off before she could even get her first sentence out – by a judge who essentially ridiculed the state's position.
lawandcrime.com lawandcrime.com


Click to expand...
Push? He has been found guilty and should be sentenced like any other criminal.
 
Magats_Love_NHB said:
Push? He has been found guilty and should be sentenced like any other criminal.
Click to expand...
The law he was charged with was never used the way it was against Trump before. That there were 34 charges, screams of charge stacking. That Merchan ignored the law as written requiring an underlying enumerated felony to bring the charges, and instructed the jury to just assume Trump had committed some felony to allow for the charges to be brought, and all the rest says Merchan wants to be rid of this disaster of a case before he ends up a target of Trump's DOJ.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The law he was charged with was never used the way it was against Trump before. That there were 34 charges, screams of charge stacking. That Merchan ignored the law as written requiring an underlying enumerated felony to bring the charges, and instructed the jury to just assume Trump had committed some felony to allow for the charges to be brought, and all the rest says Merchan wants to be rid of this disaster of a case before he ends up a target of Trump's DOJ.
Click to expand...
It was decided in a court of law by a jury of his peers that his legal defense agreed to.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Trump's lawyers are just collecting fuel to use in the appeal. The harder Merchan pushes this, the more likely the appeals court will toss the entire case out, which they appear to have every inclination of doing at this point.

lawandcrime.com

Judges appear receptive to Trump arguments in civil fraud case appeal, AG repeatedly cut off

The lawyer speaking for the attorney general's office was cut off before she could even get her first sentence out – by a judge who essentially ridiculed the state's position.
lawandcrime.com lawandcrime.com


Click to expand...
You mean the NY appeals court that 8 times has denied Trump's appeals? That court is likely to suddenly see the light and find value in his specious legal arguments? Trump's hoping they agree to hear it and then he will delay any hearing until he takes office so he can claim Presidential immunity. I would hope the appeals court quickly denies this but you never know, they may request arguments before making a decision.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The law he was charged with was never used the way it was against Trump before. That there were 34 charges, screams of charge stacking. That Merchan ignored the law as written requiring an underlying enumerated felony to bring the charges, and instructed the jury to just assume Trump had committed some felony to allow for the charges to be brought, and all the rest says Merchan wants to be rid of this disaster of a case before he ends up a target of Trump's DOJ.
Click to expand...
Wow. You sure like to make shit up that isn't true.
There were 4 underlying felonies listed in court documents and flings that made the falsification of records a felony. The court denied one of those so the jury heard of 3 underlying felonies that made the falsification a felony. Each jury member could decide for themselves if any of the underlying felonies existed and they all didn't have to decide on the same one. The judge didn't tell the jury they could just assume there was an underlying felony. The jury had to decide there was enough evidence of an underlying felony.
 
Magats_Love_NHB said:
It was decided in a court of law by a jury of his peers that his legal defense agreed to.
Click to expand...
So were many, many Southern legal cases against Blacks where they were railroaded into prison. You are making a non sequitur fallacy.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Wow. You sure like to make shit up that isn't true.
There were 4 underlying felonies listed in court documents and flings that made the falsification of records a felony. The court denied one of those so the jury heard of 3 underlying felonies that made the falsification a felony. Each jury member could decide for themselves if any of the underlying felonies existed and they all didn't have to decide on the same one. The judge didn't tell the jury they could just assume there was an underlying felony. The jury had to decide there was enough evidence of an underlying felony.
Click to expand...
Do give us a link on that.
 
this-guy-thrives-on-anger-and-hatred-v0-x9swrqf3mgbe1.jpeg
 
Magats_Love_NHB said:
He’s already been found guilty and is demanding the judge give him no sentence for the crimes he committed. Congratulations Republicans you knowingly elected a convicted criminal and civilly convicted rapist that declares he is above the law.
Click to expand...
He isn't a convicted felon. The judge has to enter the verdict before it is official.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So were many, many Southern legal cases against Blacks where they were railroaded into prison. You are making a non sequitur fallacy.

Do give us a link on that.
Click to expand...
Bringing up blacks in the south would be the non sequitor.

Are you unable to find and read the court rulings? The information can be found there if you actually wanted to find out instead of just spouting your bullshit.
Start with the Feb 12, 24 decision and order which lists the 4 possible crimes that make the falsification felonies and the judge's ruling on which ones are allowed.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Bringing up blacks in the south would be the non sequitor.

Are you unable to find and read the court rulings? The information can be found there if you actually wanted to find out instead of just spouting your bullshit.
Start with the Feb 12, 24 decision and order which lists the 4 possible crimes that make the falsification felonies and the judge's ruling on which ones are allowed.
Click to expand...
"Possible" doesn't count. The law required--at least up to Trump--an ACTUAL underlying felony, that is one that was committed, tried, and convicted--for this law to be used.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
"Possible" doesn't count. The law required--at least up to Trump--an ACTUAL underlying felony, that is one that was committed, tried, and convicted--for this law to be used.
Click to expand...
Link showing that an actual underlying felony must have been committed to apply?

The actual law does not require a conviction. That is your made up bullshit. Clearly you didn't take the time to read the court's ruling since you are responding so quickly with made up nonsense. The law clearly doesn't require another crime be committed, tried and convicted since the law applies if there is an intent to commit another crime or intent to conceal another crime. The ruling cites cases where intent was enough to make the falsifying a felony and the conviction was upheld on appeal. Your claim that this was the first time intent was all that was required is false.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Link showing that an actual underlying felony must have been committed to apply?

The actual law does not require a conviction. That is your made up bullshit. Clearly you didn't take the time to read the court's ruling since you are responding so quickly with made up nonsense. The law clearly doesn't require another crime be committed, tried and convicted since the law applies if there is an intent to commit another crime or intent to conceal another crime. The ruling cites cases where intent was enough to make the falsifying a felony and the conviction was upheld on appeal. Your claim that this was the first time intent was all that was required is false.
Click to expand...

The alleged cover-up is Bragg's reasoning for charging Trump with 34 felonies, rather than misdemeanors. In order to convict, Bragg will need to prove Trump tried to conceal crimes that he has not been charged with — and that are not actually named in the indictment.

  • One of those potential crimes — violating federal campaign finance laws — is not in Bragg's power to prosecute as a district attorney.
  • The unusual legal strategy could pose a significant challenge — and may backfire in spectacular fashion if Trump is acquitted or the judge dismisses the case before it's even brought to trial.

Because the New York falsifying business records crime is ordinarily a misdemeanor offense with a two-year statute of limitations period, to avoid the statute of limitations, the government needed to elevate the charges to felony offenses by asserting that Trump had the “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” To do so, it relied at trial, though not in its indictment, on a separate misdemeanor criminal charge that appears to have never been used similarly: Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law. That law makes it unlawful to conspire to promote a candidate’s election by “unlawful means.”


www.lawfaremedia.org

What Must Prosecutors Prove in Trump’s NY Trial?

Some in-the-weeds questions on which the New York Trump trial depends.
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org

Without an enumerated underlying felony the case falls apart. Merchan cannot simply let the jury decide that Trump committed some unenumerated felony because the prosecution says so without evidence of a prior trial and conviction. This was the problem for Bragg all along. Charging the case as a misdemeanor put it out of the statute of limitations. Thus, Bragg was forced to bring it as felony charges but didn't have the necessary prerequisite underlying felony to use for that. So, he brought on the basis of nothing more than probable cause, something never done with that law before. Merchan went along with that and even stopped any attempts by the defense to bring this up in front of the jury.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The alleged cover-up is Bragg's reasoning for charging Trump with 34 felonies, rather than misdemeanors. In order to convict, Bragg will need to prove Trump tried to conceal crimes that he has not been charged with — and that are not actually named in the indictment.

  • One of those potential crimes — violating federal campaign finance laws — is not in Bragg's power to prosecute as a district attorney.
  • The unusual legal strategy could pose a significant challenge — and may backfire in spectacular fashion if Trump is acquitted or the judge dismisses the case before it's even brought to trial.

Because the New York falsifying business records crime is ordinarily a misdemeanor offense with a two-year statute of limitations period, to avoid the statute of limitations, the government needed to elevate the charges to felony offenses by asserting that Trump had the “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” To do so, it relied at trial, though not in its indictment, on a separate misdemeanor criminal charge that appears to have never been used similarly: Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law. That law makes it unlawful to conspire to promote a candidate’s election by “unlawful means.”


www.lawfaremedia.org

What Must Prosecutors Prove in Trump’s NY Trial?

Some in-the-weeds questions on which the New York Trump trial depends.
www.lawfaremedia.org www.lawfaremedia.org

Without an enumerated underlying felony the case falls apart. Merchan cannot simply let the jury decide that Trump committed some unenumerated felony because the prosecution says so without evidence of a prior trial and conviction. This was the problem for Bragg all along. Charging the case as a misdemeanor put it out of the statute of limitations. Thus, Bragg was forced to bring it as felony charges but didn't have the necessary prerequisite underlying felony to use for that. So, he brought on the basis of nothing more than probable cause, something never done with that law before. Merchan went along with that and even stopped any attempts by the defense to bring this up in front of the jury.
Click to expand...
You keep repeating the same bullshit and seem to think if you repeat it enough times it will become true. (Your link is from before the trial and before most of the court rulings and simply opinion that only addresses one of the three possible crimes that make the falsification a felony.)


This is from a 2010 appeals court ruling where the person was convicted of only one count of falsifying business records and acquitted on the other 71 criminal counts. (Her husband was also convicted of the one count and denied in a separate appeal.)

The fact that defendant was acquitted of other counts, including count 11 charging insurance fraudas to the May 6, 2001 accident, does not compel the conclusion that her conviction on count 12 wasnot based on legally sufficient evidence. "The jury could . . . convict defendant of falsifying business records if the jury concluded that defendant had the intent to commit or conceal another crime,even if [she] was not convicted of the other crime" (People v McCumiskey, 12 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2004]; see People v Saxton, 75 AD3d 755,759 [2010]; see also People v Taveras,12 NY3d 21, 27 [2009] ["Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the seconddegree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement. . . not any additional actus reus element"]).

If you really want to find out how wrong you are, just follow the links to the other 3 cases cited in that statement by the court. In one of those other cases the court threw out the felony conviction that should have been charged as a federal crime but kept the falsification of records as a felony with no other convictions of state crimes. The intent to commit a federal crime is enough to make the falsification of records a felony in NY long before Trump was indicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top