 |
|
Some are alleging they used inadmissable evidence in Trump's
Posted on: July 2, 2024 at 21:46:32 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
65967
Member For:
20.60 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
trial.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/07/02/new-york-prosecutor-asks-judge-to-delay-trump-sentencing-scotus-immunity-ruling-changes-everything/#more-261729
Alvin Bragg used evidence, within the trial, that has been deemed by the Supreme court to be inadmissible. President Trump’s lawyers are filing a motion to overturn the judgement based on the SCOTUS ruling. Bragg now requests additional time to review the Lawfare consequences and construct his own legal strategy.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/07/01/supreme-court-rules-president-trump-has-absolute-immunity-for-official-actions-within-constitutional-authority/#more-261685
As expected, the high court instructed the lower trial courts to hold specific evidentiary hearings on each anti-Trump criminal count, and determine which counts, if any, related to official or unofficial acts.
The Supreme Court is essentially telling the lower courts to go back and look at each citation and review which claims are official acts and which claims related to unofficial acts. The Supreme Court ruled that presidents may not have immunity for non-official conduct. However, when the judicial review cannot differentiate, the court cannot look at motives for the decisions.
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” the Court ruled. “Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct.”
...
“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,” the Court added.
...
The WASHINGTON POST is not happy…. “A few key points:
The court ruled that Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for any conduct “involving his discussions with Justice Department officials” — a significant segment of his federal indictment. For instance, this would seem to take off the table Trump’s interactions with Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, a key figure who has been indicted in Georgia alongside Trump, as well as other top Justice Department officials telling Trump his voter-fraud theories were wrong.
It ruled that he is presumed immune from prosecution for pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election on Jan. 6, 2021, because Trump’s acts “involve official conduct.” It said the burden is on the government to prove that prosecuting Trump for this wouldn’t “pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
It left open the possibility that Trump can be prosecuted for other actions, particularly those with regard to people outside the executive branch and in the states. It ruled that “this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function.”
All of which means some of Trump’s conduct can still be prosecuted, but some cannot. And figuring out what can and cannot be is still to be determined.
The other crucial point is this: The court ruled not only that Trump can’t be prosecuted for certain conduct, but also that conduct for which he is immune can’t even be used as evidence against him. So, his interactions with Justice Department officials, for instance, can’t be used to establish a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election. (link)
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/07/02/new-york-prosecutor-asks-judge-to-delay-trump-sentencing-scotus-immunity-ruling-changes-everything/#more-261729
Alvin Bragg used evidence, within the trial, that has been deemed by the Supreme court to be inadmissible. President Trump’s lawyers are filing a motion to overturn the judgement based on the SCOTUS ruling. Bragg now requests additional time to review the Lawfare consequences and construct his own legal strategy.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/07/01/supreme-court-rules-president-trump-has-absolute-immunity-for-official-actions-within-constitutional-authority/#more-261685
As expected, the high court instructed the lower trial courts to hold specific evidentiary hearings on each anti-Trump criminal count, and determine which counts, if any, related to official or unofficial acts.
The Supreme Court is essentially telling the lower courts to go back and look at each citation and review which claims are official acts and which claims related to unofficial acts. The Supreme Court ruled that presidents may not have immunity for non-official conduct. However, when the judicial review cannot differentiate, the court cannot look at motives for the decisions.
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” the Court ruled. “Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct.”
...
“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,” the Court added.
...
The WASHINGTON POST is not happy…. “A few key points:
The court ruled that Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for any conduct “involving his discussions with Justice Department officials” — a significant segment of his federal indictment. For instance, this would seem to take off the table Trump’s interactions with Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, a key figure who has been indicted in Georgia alongside Trump, as well as other top Justice Department officials telling Trump his voter-fraud theories were wrong.
It ruled that he is presumed immune from prosecution for pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election on Jan. 6, 2021, because Trump’s acts “involve official conduct.” It said the burden is on the government to prove that prosecuting Trump for this wouldn’t “pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
It left open the possibility that Trump can be prosecuted for other actions, particularly those with regard to people outside the executive branch and in the states. It ruled that “this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function.”
All of which means some of Trump’s conduct can still be prosecuted, but some cannot. And figuring out what can and cannot be is still to be determined.
The other crucial point is this: The court ruled not only that Trump can’t be prosecuted for certain conduct, but also that conduct for which he is immune can’t even be used as evidence against him. So, his interactions with Justice Department officials, for instance, can’t be used to establish a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election. (link)
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Some are alleging they used inadmissable evidence in Trump's - JeffB MU - 7/2 21:46:32