Let me start with he was so irreparably harmed he was voted back in as president? Kind of hard to claim irreparably harmed with that in your back pocket.
BUT staying the sentence doesn't CHANGE the conviction. By not staying the sentence, Trump will feel more urgency to appeal, so that can get completely off his record. Has it occurred to…
Let me start with he was so irreparably harmed he was voted back in as president? Kind of hard to claim irreparably harmed with that in your back pocket.
BUT staying the sentence doesn't CHANGE the conviction. By not staying the sentence, Trump will feel more urgency to appeal, so that can get completely off his record. Has it occurred to anyone that Robets and Coney-Barret might have actually done him a favor?
So, you want us to believe that the entire trial wasn't a complete sham and scam on the American people, not just Trump. The case should have never been brought. You should get serious.
Did I say that? Not even in the slightest. What I think people might consider is that instead of kicking the can down the road, which is all a stay would do, having the sentence completed, and in such a way i t shows its a complete sham, the appeal to get the whole thing overturned can get on the road.
Should the whole case have been thrown out, yes, but that wasn't what the Supreme Court decided on. They were asked to stay the sentence due to his being elected President. IMO, Trump has been requesting things in THIS trial for the wrong reasons. It's not that he should not be persecuted because he was elected president. It's that this whole thing was a ridiculous witch hunt and the whole thing needs to be overturned on that alone else you or I could be charged if our bookkeeper wrote something someone else thinks is incorrect in conjunction with a "crime" that is not in evidence or proven because now there is precedent for a court to do that and get away with it.
Staying a sentence does not make the conviction go away. In four years, they could have sentenced him anyway. Nothing to stop them if the only argument is that "he's now President". It's the wrong argument, imo.
I think he wanted the conviction stayed until the justice system's appellate process was completed. I agree with everything you wrote here except that Roberts and Barett acted properly. You should probable read what The dissenting opinion had to say. Still, I'm glad you clarified your position.
You can't request an appeal without the sentence, though. That is why I think it could be better to have the sentence so he CAN appeal. And I do also think that the reason requested for the stay was the wrong one. This case had zero to do with his being President, then or now, except for the attempt of election interference (imo). Trump kept arguing Presidential immunity. This case should have been thrown out based on bogus felony charges on something that was at best misdemeanors, much less 34 for the same note on checks that Trump may or may not have known was being applied to hush money someone who worked for him paid.
The dissent wasn't necessarily wrong. Reversing the conviction is the best way to go because that doesn't just spread frosting over the whole debacle (Trump is president so it doesn't count, even if he did it). Reversing it destroys the entire narrative. (The charges were bogus and not valid)
The dissent wasn't necessarily wrong? It was correct. It would've been 9-zip otherwise.
The real problem here is that the SCOTUS did not want to make the big muscle movement, dare I say bowel movement, necessary to bring fire and fury on a deeply corrupt "legal" system in NY which hurt the ENTIRE country. Bragg, deeply corrupt Coangelo from dept of injustice, and Merchan should have been removed from office and jailed for what every other legal office said wasn't a crime and should have never gone to trial. But the three quacks and 2 turncoats - Benedicta Barrett and Judas Roberts - at SCOTUS want to play games instead.
Let me start with he was so irreparably harmed he was voted back in as president? Kind of hard to claim irreparably harmed with that in your back pocket.
BUT staying the sentence doesn't CHANGE the conviction. By not staying the sentence, Trump will feel more urgency to appeal, so that can get completely off his record. Has it occurred to anyone that Robets and Coney-Barret might have actually done him a favor?
So, you want us to believe that the entire trial wasn't a complete sham and scam on the American people, not just Trump. The case should have never been brought. You should get serious.
Did I say that? Not even in the slightest. What I think people might consider is that instead of kicking the can down the road, which is all a stay would do, having the sentence completed, and in such a way i t shows its a complete sham, the appeal to get the whole thing overturned can get on the road.
Should the whole case have been thrown out, yes, but that wasn't what the Supreme Court decided on. They were asked to stay the sentence due to his being elected President. IMO, Trump has been requesting things in THIS trial for the wrong reasons. It's not that he should not be persecuted because he was elected president. It's that this whole thing was a ridiculous witch hunt and the whole thing needs to be overturned on that alone else you or I could be charged if our bookkeeper wrote something someone else thinks is incorrect in conjunction with a "crime" that is not in evidence or proven because now there is precedent for a court to do that and get away with it.
Staying a sentence does not make the conviction go away. In four years, they could have sentenced him anyway. Nothing to stop them if the only argument is that "he's now President". It's the wrong argument, imo.
I think he wanted the conviction stayed until the justice system's appellate process was completed. I agree with everything you wrote here except that Roberts and Barett acted properly. You should probable read what The dissenting opinion had to say. Still, I'm glad you clarified your position.
You can't request an appeal without the sentence, though. That is why I think it could be better to have the sentence so he CAN appeal. And I do also think that the reason requested for the stay was the wrong one. This case had zero to do with his being President, then or now, except for the attempt of election interference (imo). Trump kept arguing Presidential immunity. This case should have been thrown out based on bogus felony charges on something that was at best misdemeanors, much less 34 for the same note on checks that Trump may or may not have known was being applied to hush money someone who worked for him paid.
The dissent wasn't necessarily wrong. Reversing the conviction is the best way to go because that doesn't just spread frosting over the whole debacle (Trump is president so it doesn't count, even if he did it). Reversing it destroys the entire narrative. (The charges were bogus and not valid)
That is my perspective.
The dissent wasn't necessarily wrong? It was correct. It would've been 9-zip otherwise.
The real problem here is that the SCOTUS did not want to make the big muscle movement, dare I say bowel movement, necessary to bring fire and fury on a deeply corrupt "legal" system in NY which hurt the ENTIRE country. Bragg, deeply corrupt Coangelo from dept of injustice, and Merchan should have been removed from office and jailed for what every other legal office said wasn't a crime and should have never gone to trial. But the three quacks and 2 turncoats - Benedicta Barrett and Judas Roberts - at SCOTUS want to play games instead.