Connect with us

News

‘All Eyes on SCOTUS’ After Trump Loses Sentencing Bid at Top NY Court

Published

on

The clock is running out on Donald Trump’s efforts in the New York judicial system to delay criminal sentencing, as a judge in the state’s highest court rejected his motion Thursday morning. Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of business fraud stemming from his “hush money” case. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg declared the convictions were for “falsifying New York business records in order to conceal his illegal scheme to corrupt the 2016 election.

Trump’s last hope appears to be for the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, a request he made Wednesday. Some experts have suggested the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction in the case—an argument Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is now making.

On Thursday morning, a judge at New York’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, denied Trump’s motion to delay sentencing, which is slated for Friday morning.

READ MORE: Trump Blames Wildfires on ‘Biden/Newscum Duo’ in Multiple Attacks as Californians Lose All

“Three levels of New York courts have now rejected Donald Trump’s efforts to delay tomorrow’s criminal sentencing,” Courthouse News’ Erik Uebelacker reported. “All eyes are now on the U.S. Supreme Court,”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, responding almost immediately to Trump’s request to delay sentencing, ordered Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to respond to the President-elect’s motion.

Bragg’s response is damning.

“Defendant now asks this Court to take the extraordinary step of intervening in a pending state criminal trial to prevent the scheduled sentencing from taking place—before final judgment has been entered by the trial court, and before any direct appellate review of defendant’s conviction. There is no basis for such intervention,” Bragg writes.

Citing federal statute, Bragg states the U.S. Supreme Court “lacks jurisdiction over a state court’s management of an ongoing criminal trial when defendant has not exhausted his state-law remedies,” and there has been no final judgment rendered.

He also states that Trump “has not satisfied the stringent standards necessary to support the ‘extraordinary remedy’ of a stay.”

READ MORE: DOJ to Release Special Counsel’s J6 Report on Trump, His Lawyers Expected to Object: Report

Trump’s “assertion that any invocation of presidential immunity automatically entitles him to a stay pending appeal is incorrect; this Court must instead consider whether a stay is appropriate for the particular claims of immunity that defendant has raised.”

Bragg continues to hammer away at Trump’s arguments.

The “defendant claims that his recent election as President immediately entitled him to the same immunity from prosecution as the sitting President and thus exempts him from the January 10 sentencing,” Bragg writes. Trump, he says, “makes the unprecedented claim that the temporary presidential immunity he will possess in the future fully immunizes him now, weeks before he even takes the oath of office, from all state-court criminal process. This extraordinary immunity claim is unsupported by any decision from any court.” [Italics are in the original document.]

Noting that “there is only one President at a time,” Bragg adds, “Non-employees of the government do not exercise any official function that would be impaired by the conclusion of a criminal case against a private citizen for private conduct. And as this Court has repeatedly recognized, presidential immunity is strictly limited to the time of the President’s term in office.”

He also says there is a “compelling public interest” to move to sentencing, and notes that Judge Juan Merchan has already stated he will not sentence Trump to jail time.

“Now we find out if there are enough votes on SCOTUS to give Trump even more immunity than he already has,” observed Professor of Law and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance.

The question of votes comes amid news, first reported by ABC News, that on Tuesday, Trump called U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, one of the most far-right jurists on the top court, purportedly to discuss a job reference.

“We did not discuss the emergency application he filed [Wednesday], and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito said, ABC reported. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect.”

While the Supreme Court is under no obligation to respond before Trump’s sentencing Friday, it likely will.

“The Court will probably issue its order this evening,” notes The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie.

RELATED: ‘Bananas’: Congressman Asks How Trump’s ‘Insane’ Threats Benefit Americans Economically

 

Image via Reuters

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Unconstitutional Conspiracy’: Judge Blasts Trump Administration Officials

Published

on

A Reagan-appointed federal judge declared that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had “conspired” to chill First Amendment rights in a case involving pro-Palestinian student protesters.

Senior Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, on Thursday said that Rubio and Noem had “failed in their duty to uphold the constitution,” as Politico’s Kyle Cheney reported.

Judge Young’s remarks were reported in real time by journalists covering the proceedings and shared on social media as the hearing unfolded.

“What happened here is an unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people, to twist the laws,” Judge Young said, denouncing the lack of any actual policy. “Two cabinet secretaries conspired … they intentionally, knowing what they were doing, counseled by professionals who cautioned them, nevertheless went ahead to pick off these people with the intention that your clients would be chilled. And did so rather effectively, by the way.”

Judge Young, 85, also invoked President Donald Trump.

“The big problem in this case,” Young said, “is that the cabinet secretaries and ostensibly the president of the United States are not honoring the First Amendment.”

Young, who has served on the bench for over four decades, continued, saying, “let’s talk the truth here,” as he denounced decisions made at DHS that directed professionals to be “taken off anti-terrorist investigations.”

“They were taken off human trafficking investigations all to look up … what dirt they could find on this group … the very highest levels of the DHS decided – that’s the best use of those people.”

He called it “chapter and verse about how the government can be weaponized against a disfavored group.”

According to All Rise News editor-in-chief Adam Klasfeld, Judge Young also slammed President Trump.

“It’s fairly clear that this President believes, as an authoritarian, when he speaks, everyone, everyone, in Article II, is going to toe the line absolutely.”

According to Reuters, Judge Young indicated that he would issue an order presuming immigration actions against the plaintiffs’ members were retaliatory unless the government could prove otherwise in court.

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Take Vitamins’: Johnson and White House Scramble to Keep GOP Members Showing Up

Published

on

With a razor-thin margin, Speaker Mike Johnson is urging House Republicans to show up for work — in D.C., not their district offices — and warning their absences could hamper President Donald Trump’s agenda.

“It’s dicey some days,” Johnson told reporters. “I told everybody … ‘no risk-taking, take vitamins and stay healthy and be here,’” The Washington Post reported.

The White House is also keeping an eye on members’ attendance, and has instructed Republicans to forego appearing with President Trump if there is a House vote scheduled.

“The president does not like it when he hears about members missing votes,” one person close to Trump told the Post.

READ MORE: Trump on 2026 Midterms: ‘We Shouldn’t Even Have an Election’

At risk are bills that cannot be brought to the floor because, as happened this week, Democrats in Washington outnumbered Republicans.

One near-casualty was legislation close to the president’s long-term agenda, which had to be postponed for lack of Republicans. The bill was The Shower Act, which is officially named the “Saving Homeowners from Overregulation With Exceptional Rinsing Act.”

President Trump for years has complained about water pressure regulations, and demanded removal of requirements that lower the amount of water coming out of faucets and showerheads.

Republicans have been down several voting members this month, as the Post reported.

“One Republican missed House votes because of a car crash that left him badly bruised. Another is recovering from brain surgery, while yet another was away from Washington while caring for his wife, who is dealing with a bout of cancer,” the Post noted.

There is also the sudden resignation of U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and the sudden death of U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA).

“And then there’s Rep. Wesley Hunt. The two-term Texan lawmaker, who is in a heated GOP primary for Senate, has spent so much time on the campaign trail back home that his missed votes have become a salient issue in the race,” the Post noted.

Hunt’s absence, and that of four other GOP lawmakers, forced Speaker Johnson to pull the Shower Act from a floor vote last week.

This week, it passed.

READ MORE: House Majority Flip Could Trigger Sweeping Probes Into Trump Inner Circle: Democrat

 

Image via Reuters

 

Continue Reading

News

House Majority Flip Could Trigger Sweeping Probes Into Trump Inner Circle: Democrat

Published

on

If Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November, multiple investigations into senior Trump administration officials would begin, a Democratic lawmaker said.

“Stephen Miller should lawyer up,” said U.S. Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), responding to video of his remarks earlier Thursday.

Congressman Ryan had been speaking with Pablo Manríquez, the editor of Migrant Insider on Substack, who said to the New York Democrat that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller “seems to be operating sort of as a shadow president at this point.”

“Can you think of any legal liability he could face on the back end of this presidency?” Manríquez asked.

READ MORE: Trump on 2026 Midterms: ‘We Shouldn’t Even Have an Election’

“Well,” Ryan responded, “there’s gonna be legal, and I think criminal liability for multiple members of this administration, certainly including Stephen Miller.”

“They continue to just violate the law, violate the Constitution, violate our moral standing and values as Americans,” he alleged.

Ryan said that Democrats across multiple House committees “are already readying investigations … to be ready on day one, when we retake the majority, when the voice of the people are brought back here to the House.”

Democrats currently appear likely to get that chance.

According to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report on Thursday, “House ratings show Dems as modest favorites for control, as Republicans would need to win two thirds of Toss Ups (67%) to keep the majority.”

Wasserman also noted that eighteen House races had moved in the Democrats’ direction.

READ MORE: ‘Chaos and Crisis’: Trump Sparks Alarm After Ramping Up Insurrection Act Threat

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.