Judge rules president-elect Donald Trump must be sentenced in 'hush money' trial

a reply to: WeMustCare
In another post several days ago, Trump revealed that District Attorney Alvin Bragg was "forced" into bringing this case by his superiors. (Or maybe those who have dirt on him?) He (Trump) holds no bad feelings or animosity towards Bragg.

Maybe Trump is offering Bragg a job at The White House?

He would make a perfect "Coffee & Desert Etiquette Maitre'D" 😁

a reply to: WeMustCare

The biggest problem I have now with this is that the prosecution admittedly used evidence which was inadmissible due to presidential immunity to convict him.

As an example, it would be like the feds charging you with the same crime twice, it’s called double jeopardy.
If you’re acquitted for a crime then they can’t try you again for that very same crime because you have immunity now.
Well in this case they are acting like there’s no immunity.
SCOTUS said the lower court MUST recognize presidential immunity.
What they just did is not justice.

ETA: One thing to remember in all this is that if they can do it to an ex president and president elect then they can do it to you and not even lose a second of sleep.☝️

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: WeMustCare
In another post several days ago, Trump revealed that District Attorney Alvin Bragg was "forced" into bringing this case by his superiors. (Or maybe those who have dirt on him?) He (Trump) holds no bad feelings or animosity towards Bragg.

Maybe Trump is offering Bragg a job at The White House?

He would make a perfect "Coffee & Desert Etiquette Maitre'D" 😁

Democrat Senator John Fetterman is coming to Florida for an interview with Trump next week.

Democrats are PISSED!: www.cbsnews.com...

a reply to: Vermilion

You need to let me see how Presidential immunity applies to crimes committed before becoming President. Donald Trump was not tried on this "Hush Money" thing before 2017 was he? Any link to an article that amplifies what you're describing and upset about?

a reply to: WeMustCare

They can’t use privileged information as evidence.
Those meetings in the White House and any communication with Trump when he was POTUS is subject to presidential immunity and can’t be used.
The DA admittedly used that evidence and said “sorry but you can’t unring that bell.”
Then SCOTUS lays precedent last summer by saying “you couldn't use evidence under presidential immunity” and today totally undercut that very precedent.

a reply to: Vermilion

It has to be official Presidential duties for it to be considered Presidential immunity. The hush money case never used any evidence against Trump well he was performing his Presidential duties.

It would’ve been blatantly corrupt for the scotus to dismiss this case. The fact Trump even went to them to try and over turn this case justifies everything I’ve been saying about Trump from the beginning.

He was found to have committed a felony and it should be officially documented.

I don’t know what people are tripping about though, it’s simply just a title that he’ll deservedly have to wear. Not like there’s going to be any actual consequence… that’s how the powerful and elite roll.

a reply to: Vermilion

“sorry but you can’t unring that bell.”

Attorneys love to play that sh!t! They do it all the time. Throw a bunch of inadmissible stuff out in front of the jury and then retract the question. There should be a judicial penalty for that. That's why there are laws which govern what is admissible and what isn't. If something inadmissible gets put in front of a jury it should be cause for the attorney doing it to be punished by an automatic contempt charge under threat of revocation and disbarment if they do it again, AND should result in an automatic mistrial.

Because...as this legal fox put it..."You can't unring a bell". That's BS!

edit - And, I would have said the exact same thing if it was Biden on trial!!! It's a miscarriage of justice.

Merchan painted himself into a corner with the signed document of intent SCOTUS reviewed. Adding to the actions outside of the document is (legal term) "betrayal" between justices. He can be sanctioned by SCOTUS or worse. It would be the eternal, unforgivable end of a legal career.

Symbolism over substance to get that trophy on the mantle that Trump is a convicted criminal sworn in to attack every Trump voter. That's the key, it's about attacking Trump voters.