Posted on 07/02/2024 8:32:14 AM PDT by CFW
Manhattan prosecutors said Tuesday they would not oppose Donald Trump’s request to delay the sentencing in his hush money trial as he seeks to have the conviction overturned following a Supreme Court ruling that granted broad immunity protections to presidents.
In a letter filed with the New York court, prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said they would be open to a two-week delay in the July 11 sentencing in order to file a response to Trump’s motions.
“Although we do believe the case to be without merit, we do not oppose his request” to delay the sentencing pending determination of the motion, the prosecutors wrote.
The letter came one day after Trump’s attorney requested the judge delay the sentencing as he weighs the high court’s decision and how it could influence the New York case.
The lawyers argue that the Supreme Court’s decision confirmed a position the defense raised earlier in the case that prosecutors should have been precluded from introducing some evidence the Trump team said constituted official presidential acts, according to the letter.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
““Although we do believe the case to be without merit, we do not oppose his request””
What weird wording! WE and Trump also believed THE CASE to be without merit. Is the prosecution NOW admitting it or did someone just not choose their words carefully?
Is Bragg’s office saying they believe the SCOTUS decision “without merit”? Or, maybe Trump’s attorneys’ motion is without merit? I’m not sure what “case” they are referring to in that sentence. It IS weirdly worded.
If they are saying that SCOTUS decision is without merit, they need to reconsider. Of course, the democrats have a history of ignoring court’s rulings without repercussions.
That is a strange way of putting it.
Sounds almost as if they KNOW the case must be thrown out and either dropped, or re-litigated?
It’s Merchan’s only chance to keep his spot on the bench and, as I believe, all according to plan.
Imho he has violated the canons of jurisprudence and ethics both, and a 12-year-old could easily make the case for impeaching him.
If the case is thrown out, it’s doubtful anything would ever come of it.
Boy - you’d think with a case that was pumped up like that one was, someone would have made sure that their words were clear. How painful would it have been to define WHAT CASE they were talking about? I guess we have to get over expecting too much anymore.
Why delay? There’s no way that bookkeeping errors in Trump’s business can be considered official acts of the President.
“Why delay? There’s no way that bookkeeping errors in Trump’s business can be considered official acts of the President.”
There is some question about the testimony allowed at trial.
From TechnoFog:
“Important to the New York case is the Supreme Court’s discussion that a prosecutor cannot “invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.” A prosecutor may not “admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself,” as this presents a “unique risk” that the jury’s deliberations would be prejudiced.
During the trial, Judge Merchan allowed evidence of then-President Trump’s Tweets, public statements, and oval office meetings. As Trump’s attorneys argued yesterday, “this official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury.” This is no mere harmless error. While it’s doubtful that Judge Merchan agrees (he’s almost anti-Trump as Judge Chutkan), this is solid grounds for appeal.”
TechnoFog goes over all the cases and the effect the Court’s ruling may have on those cases.
https://technofog.substack.com/p/presidential-immunity-trump-v-us
Because they can move it closer to Election Day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.