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.
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.
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.