Trumps sentencing postponed until sept 18 HAHA

a reply to: putnam6

Did it really just defer for clarification?

One of the main opinions in the ruling reads as

We conclude that under our constitutional structure of
separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from
criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in
office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of
his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in
this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether
that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.

That is much more than a deferral.

I suspect the Democrat strategists have decreed that keeping President Trump's legal issues in the news will help them in the election, and these legal decisions are based on this and nothing more.

system is a joke by the way when it takes them months and months to make a decision.

somebody mentioned states that can't change their ballots. I'll believe that when it happens. the Democrats are not going to let some silly laws interfere with their elections.

My guess is this guy knows after sentencing there will be an expediated appeal to the SCOTUS.

The appeal on immunity will probably be lost - campaign financing is probably not an official act but there still are appeals on the crime and prosecution for to limit rights.

This is where the conviction will be overturned.

They rather have the appeal wait so Trump can be called a convicted felon.

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: putnam6

Did it really just defer for clarification?

One of the main opinions in the ruling reads as

We conclude that under our constitutional structure of
separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from
criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in
office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of
his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in
this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether
that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.

That is much more than a deferral.

Unfortunately, much like myself YOU have no link,

Im pretty sure my point came directly from WaPo I'll see if I can find it, LOL it's in another thread

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: putnam6

Did it really just defer for clarification?

One of the main opinions in the ruling reads as

We conclude that under our constitutional structure of
separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from
criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in
office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of
his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in
this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether
that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.

That is much more than a deferral.

Unfortunately, much like myself YOU have no link,

Im pretty sure my point came directly from WaPo I'll see if I can find it, LOL it's in another thread

Here is the link to the SCOTUS ruling. It is a PDF. Page 6 for the opinion I am quoting.

PDF LINK

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: putnam6

Did it really just defer for clarification?

One of the main opinions in the ruling reads as

We conclude that under our constitutional structure of
separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from
criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in
office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of
his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in
this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether
that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.

That is much more than a deferral.

Unfortunately, much like myself YOU have no link,

Im pretty sure my point came directly from WaPo I'll see if I can find it, LOL it's in another thread

Here is the link to the SCOTUS ruling. It is a PDF

PDF LINK

Ive got the link to what SCOTUS decided the question is what happens next.. which is it goes back to the lower court.

Ruling does not equal a final decision or resolution it's just guidelines for the casse, if it can be proven Trump's acts were unofficial, he is still in hot water. Of course, whatever the lower court decides will likely be appealed anyway.

And here is WaPo link as well as their headline

Justices give presidents immunity for official acts, further delaying Trump’s trial
The justices said unofficial acts have no immunity, sending Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 case back to the D.C. judge to decide which alleged acts are official.

From the article

www.washingtonpost.com...

The high court left it up to the D.C. trial judge, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, to determine which parts of Trump’s alleged conduct were unofficial acts by the then-president — a formula that seems likely to further narrow the scope of Smith’s case against Trump and add significant time and further appeals to the case.

But because Roberts did not send the case back to lower courts “forthwith,” as the special counsel had asked, Chutkan will have to wait until early August to begin those determinations.

a reply to: putnam6

Ah, I see what you are saying. Apologies for my confusion.

Yes you are correct, we dont know the next events from this ruling, in particular how the lower courts will proceed. They may appeal or dismiss.

Would you still agree that this ruling reaffirms the immunity defense for presidents when doing certain acts?

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: putnam6

Ah, I see what you are saying. Apologies for my confusion.

Yes you are correct, we dont know the next events from this ruling, in particular how the lower courts will proceed. They may appeal or dismiss.

Would you still agree that this ruling reaffirms the immunity defense for presidents when doing certain acts?

Yes, it does. Presidents have always had immunity from certain acts, it's the determination of what's official and what's not an official act.

Obviously, the ruling is a win for Trump, but Im not sure it opens the door for any more malfeasance from our future Presidents than our current or past Presidents' have enjoyed.

a reply to: putnam6

Yes, it does. Presidents have always had immunity from certain acts, it's the determination of what's official and what's not an official act.

So this determination if an act is official or not is the balancing factor? Does the fact we have added another step to the process not increase the level of protection?

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: putnam6

Yes, it does. Presidents have always had immunity from certain acts, it's the determination of what's official and what's not an official act.

So this determination if an act is official or not is the balancing factor? Does the fact we have added another step to the process not increase the level of protection?

All it said was that the President is immune from official acts, technically we have always had questions about Presidential authority and what they are and are not immune from, thats what SCOTUS is for.


It is important to note that the concept of presidential immunity is complex and has evolved over time. The Supreme Court has recognized the need for immunity to protect the President from distractions and undue scrutiny that could interfere with their official duties. However, the extent and scope of this immunity have been the subject of ongoing legal debates and interpretations.

a reply to: EndTime

is that just an opinion or part of the actual rulings? 😊

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: putnam6

Yes, it does. Presidents have always had immunity from certain acts, it's the determination of what's official and what's not an official act.

So this determination if an act is official or not is the balancing factor? Does the fact we have added another step to the process not increase the level of protection?

Those partisan judges never held the proper evidentiary hearings(due process) to determine which acts were admissible as pertains to presidential immunity.
How do I know that they didn’t give Trump proper due process?
Anybody who’s been paying attention could see it AND SCOTUS specifically said that in their majority opinion.
How do I know the judges are partisan hacks?
The reason they didn’t give Trump his proper due process(evidentiary hearings) is because…
1) They were trying to ram this case through as quickly as possible before the election(election interference)
2) They know if they held those evidentiary hearings it would gut those cases.

The fact that inadmissible evidence was used to convict is a valid reason for a mistrial.
I’m sure you would agree, especially if you were the defendant.
There are other valid reasons this case would be reversed on appeal as well.
Brace yourself for a mistrial.
They got what they wanted anyway, slinging more mud on Trump and getting in the way of his campaign.

I would think that the judge is going to seek legal advice so that sentencing is entirely above-board, and that Trump cannot appeal against unfair sentencing.

a reply to: chr0naut
You may be partly correct, I think the judge will be seeking legal advice along with Bragg.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

chr0naut: I would think that the judge is going to seek legal advice so that sentencing is entirely above-board, and that Trump cannot appeal against unfair sentencing.

a reply to:chr0naut
You may be partly correct, I think the judge will be seeking legal advice along with Bragg.



The issue is they already shat upon all of our rights to piece this supposed set of misdemeanors that were well past the Statute of Limitations. They basically lied their way to a case on top of the lack of proper procedures so they can BAMN get Trump.