Judge in Trump’s New York ‘Hush Money’ Case Won’t Delay Trial
Jury selection begins April 15. SCOTUS hears presidential immunity arguments on April 25.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan denied former President Donald Trump’s request to delay his hush money case until the Supreme Court decides on presidential immunity.
The judge in Trump’s D.C. election interference case has delayed that trial as SCOTUS mulls presidential immunity.
The judge declined Trump’s request because he requested it “long past the statutory period.”
“Further, as an aside, the fact that the Defendant waited until a mere 17 days prior to the scheduled trial date of March 25, 2024, to file the motion, raises real questions about the sincerity and actual purpose of the motion,” continued Merchan.
Merchan already delayed the trial until April 15. The defense received hundreds of thousands of pages of supposed evidence that could be vital for its case.
A Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
DA Alvin Bragg inherited the case when he came into office in 2022 but suspended it. Then, he brought it back when Trump announced his 2024 presidential campaign.
Supposedly, Trump paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about an alleged affair. His former lawyer, Michael Cohen, said he set it up and paid it out of his pocket, and the Trump Organization paid him back as “legal expenses.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
All of the statutes of limitations had expired on these misdemeanor allegations so Bragg had to bootstrap the misdemeanors into a felony by claiming these are actually campaign finance violations, something that is without precedent in NY criminal law, apparently.
Can someone explain how Alvin Bragg is allowed to prosecute a federal felony (that the feds refused to prosecute) while at the very same time, Texas is not allowed to enforce federal laws in a similar manner?
This has been explained over and over. Bragg is not prosecuting a federal charge. He can’t do that, and isn’t. He is prosecuting Trump on a state crime that includes as an element that the defendant committed “another crime” anywhere in the world. The “other crime” that he is alleging Trump committed (but is not prosecuting him for) happens to be a federal crime. It could just as easily be a crime in some other state, or some other country. In order to succeed on the state charge he must prove his allegation about the “other crime” beyond reasonable doubt; but doing so would not result in a conviction on that “other crime”.
Here’s another example: Suppose there is a state law that makes it a crime for an illegal alien to drive faster than 50 mph, even in a zone that allows a higher speed for everyone else. A prosecutor bringing such a charge would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is indeed here illegally; but doing so would not result in his deportation. ICE would have to bring separate deportation proceedings, and prove it all over again.
First of all, such a state law would be laughed out of court for equal protection.
Second of all, the state law would be thrown out for *attempting to prosecute a federal law*. Stop trying to parse words so finely the words lose their meaning.
No, it would not be thrown out, because it isn’t attempting to prosecute a federal law.
And there are many laws, both state and federal, that distinguish between people based on their immigration status. Some of them affect fundamental constitutional rights, and as such violate the 14th amendment. Those that don’t do that are valid.
It is a case of Judicial Gymnastics. But it does have a certain Democrat Party / Secret Police logic.
No, it is not gymnastics, it’s the straightforward reading of the text.
Wrong. The “other crime” law has to be one Bragg actually has authority to enforce.
Now you’re just lying. The statute’s text is clear, and doesn’t make any such requirement.
But he has not been convicted of that crime, only charged. “Alleging” he committed it is enough? What about innocent until proven guilty? On its face, this does not seem right. One would think the “other crime” should have to be actually proven before it can be used to boot-strap this one.
He doesn’t have to have been convicted of the other crime, he only has to have committed it. As I wrote earlier, the crime doesn’t even have to have been committed in the USA, so it can’t require a conviction.
Bragg alleges that he committed it, and therefore the offense he’s trying him for is a felony rather than a misdemeanor. To prove that he will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did commit it, just as he has to prove every element of the offense. If he proves every other element of the offense but not that one, then the charge fails. That’s how it works.
You seem to expect that he has to prove it before the trial; that doesn’t apply to any other element of the offense, so why should it apply to this one? His job is to prove all the elements, but only at the trial, not before.
If he has not been convicted, how has he committed it, legally? At this point it is just an accusation of a crime, not proven that he is guilty of said crime. Is it legally still “allegedly” committed this crime?
Since the Federal prosecutor turned down the case a year or two ago, that should establish reasonable doubt right there. Since the NY prosecutor turned down the case when he got it, more reasonable doubt. Since the sole witness who claims this action was taken for campaign purposes never worked on the campaign, and will face perjury charges in his plea if says otherwise, *and* has admitted to multiple cases of perjury to this point, that’s even more reasonable doubt.
I would say this case is a slim reed, but that’s an insult to reeds.
Now you’re just being silly. A person commits a crime by committing it. It doesn’t retroactively become a crime only when he’s eventually convicted of it. It’s a crime even if nobody ever finds out about it, and he totally gets away with it.
No, it hasn’t yet been proven that he committed the crime; in order to convict him on the state charge Bragg will have to prove that at trial. But that doesn’t change the fact that if he committed it then he did indeed commit it. So if Bragg manages to prove it, he will have proved that element of the state charge.
That sentence makes no sense. There is no such thing as ‘legally still “allegedly”‘. Allegedly is not a legal status. This is not Schrödinger’s cat. Either he committed the crime or he didn’t. We may not yet know, we may never know, but it’s still one or the other.
No, that’s not how it works. Their choices not to prosecute don’t in themselves create any doubt. It’s still open to Bragg to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he did commit the other crime, and is therefore guilty of the one he’s charged with. But he does have to do that, just as he has to prove every other element of the crime.
Yeah, you don’t get. Trump hasn’t committed a crime ‘anywhere in the world’ though. How do I know that? Because Trump hasn’t been CONVICTED of ANY crime ANYWHERE in the world. Bragg is attempting to become the trier of fact for an alleged crime for which he has no jurisdiction to prosecute.
There’s a reason why – according to the NY Times – that the pertinent NY statute has NEVER been used in this manner before now.
Now you’re just being ridiculous. The fact that someone hasn’t been convicted of a crime is no proof at all that he didn’t commit it. People commit crimes every day and get away with them. If Trump committed a federal crime and got away with it, and he committed this state offense in order to cover it up, then the state offense is a felony. If either of those premises is not true, then it is not. Bragg has every right to attempt to convict him of the state offense, by proving that he committed the federal offense. If he succeeds then he gets his state conviction; there still won’t be a federal conviction. And of course if he fails to prove it then he won’t get the state conviction either.
Wut? That’s the very premise of our legal system: PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
And now the Judge has labeled the case a “Federal Insurrection Matter”, making it *very* clear what he thinks he’s overseeing, despite Milhouse’s overly pedantic ideas to the contrary.
(https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/judge-merchan-abruptly-labels-trump-case-federal-insurrection-matter/)
No, you have completely misunderstood that principle. Whether someone has committed a crime is a matter of objective fact. Either he has or he has not. It’s not Schrödinger’s cat. And if he committed it, then he is guilty, regardless of whether anyone else even knows about it, let alone whether he’s been convicted of it.
The presumption of innocence applies only at trial on that charge. A jury that is told the defendant committed a crime must start with the presumption that this is not true. The prosecution must then prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is true. If it fails to do so that doesn’t mean the defendant isn’t guilty, just that the jury must find him so because the prosecution has failed its burden.
In this case, since the “other crime” is an element in this one, the jury must start with the presumption that he didn’t commit it, just as with every other element of the crime. The prosecution must prove that he did commit it. Bragg doesn’t dispute that he has that burden.
But the fact that there was no conviction in the “other crime” is completely irrelevant. If he can convince the jury that Trump did commit it, and also of all the other elements, then they must convict him of the crime with which he’s actually charged (but not the “other crime”, with which he isn’t charged).
No, he hasn’t. You either haven’t bothered to read the article to which you linked, or you’re incapable of reading simple English, or you’re deliberately lying. One of those three.
Let’s go to the quotation!
“The procedural history of the instant matter, together with the procedural history of the Federal Insurrection Matter, leave no doubt that Defendant was aware of that defense.”
Stop being obtuse, Milhouse.
Please let us take that shovel away from you.
I think I’m going to have to go with Option 2, “incapable of reading simple English”. But your English is good enough that it’s probably your mother tongue; so Option 3, “deliberately lying”, is running a close second.
The quote you provided shows the exact opposite of your claim. And McCarthy’s article that you linked explicitly says so, but you never bothered reading it.
The problem Milhouse ignores in this is that there IS NO FEDERAL CRIME that Trump was charged with that this could be tied to.
There are no charges filed, no cases pending.
So the idea that the hush money misfiling was done to cover up THAT OTHER CRIME –which is what this trial is about– is utter hogwash.
Exactly. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
The statute’s language is short and clear. There is NO REQUIREMENT that he has been charged with the other crime. You’re simply making that up.
Yes, I am. Just like the ‘law’ and this case.
That’s the point, Milhouse.
This entire thing relies on made up BS.
The ‘law’ may, possibly, we don’t really know because this is a novel interpretation, allow a misdemeanor to be elevated to a felony when said misdemeanor was committed to cover up another crime.
But that other crime does not have to have been adjudicated in any way. It doesn’t even have to have been charged.
The prosecutor just has to SAY it exists.
Are you getting it yet, Democrat?
ALL of this is made up BS.
Just like the ‘law’ that E Jean Carrol and her cohorts lobbied for and got passed that allows them to civilly sue Trump for Carrol’s weird fantasies.
Just like the idea that there’s some governing body that gets to decide what the president can declassify.
This is ALL made up.
You have been wrong every time you have tried to explain.
And yet you haven’t been able to point to even one thing I’ve got wrong. Your previous contribution was to claim that the “other crime” must be something Bragg can prosecute. That contradicts the statute’s very plain language.
Also, it is clear that —
1) Judge Merchan harbors a clear animus against Mr. Trump, calling into question his ability to be fair
2) The judge’s daughter runs a political consulting firm that cites her father’s work against Mr. Trump as a way to raise money for her political clients
3) The judge issued a gag order on Mr. Trump that constitutes prior restraint, and prevents Mr. Trump from defending himself. These are clear constitutional concerns
All in all, the judge will likely find a way to convict Mr. Trump. It’ll all then be reversed on appeal. But the damage will be done.
NY Courts are Kangaroo Courts
Frank G
And he did it for the same reason the other far leftists in robes issue blatantly illegal and unconstitutional rulings.
Because the only thing that happens is a few weeks or months down the road, an appeal court might tell him that he can’t do it and has to stop. That’s it.
No consequences. No punishment.
So why would he NOT pull crap like this ridiculous gag order?
1. Trump providing frivolous arguments doesn’t indicate the judge having animus it indicates him doing his job properly
2. The judge already went to an ethics panel to clear this question
3. No it does not, intimidating witnesses etc is not a valid defence
Here is the ethics panel’s advisory opinion that Merchan does not have to recuse himself. Read it for yourself and see whether the factual premises on which it’s based are correct.
At no point in there does it mention that the judge and his daughter have recently actively worked against the defendants political ambitions and goals in a material fashion.
You can be someone who didn’t vote for Trump and not recuse. You can be someone who spoke out against Trump and not recuse.
But you can’t be part of the group trying to invent ‘novel interpretations of the law’ to prevent Trump from even running and not recuse.
You’re lying, as usual. Go back to Hell.
I can’t go back, Milhouse, I’m already in Hell, I must be, because you’re still vomiting forth the lies you want everyone to accept as truth so that your leftist masters can destroy the nation and the world.
Points 1) and 2) are true. However, Trump can defend himself–in court, which is the part that matters. It is fair to point out, however, that the gag order is one-sided, which (aside from the perception that it’s unfair) allows the prosecution and its witnesses to have full control of the narrative and could thereby prejudice the case. That might prevail on appeal…but of course, the damage for the 2024 election will have been done (I think it’s obvious to point out that is what the decision is designed to do).
There is no need to exaggerate in point 3); what was actually done is bad enough.
No, it isn’t. It applies equally to both parties.
There is no way to defend the legal system in NY. I refuse to refer to it as a justice system since it has no regard for justice.
At some point other states are going to refuse to recognize the NY legal system and decline extradition orders and other judicial cooperation.
NY and many blue cities including in red states have made crime (robbery, assault, carjacking etc.) legal and opposition to democrat party objectives the crime that they consistently enforce.
They can’t do that, at least not without first amending the constitution.
Extradition is not discretionary. All states are required to comply with extradition orders from all other states, whether they like it or not. They may be phrased as requests, but they are not optional.
I seem to recall a recent headline where a red city refused to return a defendant to a blue state because he would either not be prosecuted or incarcerated. Don’t know how it turned out.
Whether such a refusal is in compliance with the constitution presents an interesting scenario. Some of the blue city/state’s persecutions for the Dems political enemies is clearly selective and malicious. If a few states refused claiming the extraditions were unlawful things could get interesting particularly if Trump wins in Nov and the DOJ is no longer an arm of the Democrat party. Perhaps a few high-profile cases before the Supreme Court would clarify whether the individual rights guaranteed by constitution are nullified by rules allowing Democrat DA’s and Judges to persecute political enemies without any concern for negative consequences.
In that case Arizona is not refusing extradition, it’s telling New York “You’re welcome to have him, just as soon as he’s finished his sentence here; or else you can have him when you’re ready to put him on trial. But in the meantime we’re keeping him in custody here, whereas if we ship him to you now you’re likely to give him bail and let him escape”.
Considering the number of “sanctuary cities/states” in regards to immigration where the authorities simply refuse to help enforce the law I wonder what would happen if the locations simply did nothing when requested to extradite a person.
There is no comparison at all. States are not required to cooperate with federal law enforcement. They are required to extradite fugitives from other states on demand. If a state refuses to do so a federal court will order the governor to deliver the fugitive, and if he doesn’t the court will hold him in contempt and send the US marshals to arrest him.
“States are not required to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”
Okay.
” If a state refuses to do so a federal court will order the governor to deliver the fugitive, and if he doesn’t the court will hold him in contempt and send the US marshals to arrest him”
But you just said that states are not required to cooperate with federal law enforcement.
If interstate extradition is a federal requirement, then enforcing it is –federal law enforcement.
As usual, you are full of lies.
It is firmly established that the tenth amendment protects a state’s right to refuse to enforce federal law, or to cooperate with federal law enforcement. Congress cannot make a law requiring a state to do either of those things.
But it is equally firmly established, in fact it’s directly in the constitution, that states are bound by the law. A state need not enforce a federal law, but it must obey it. And it certainly must obey the constitution, which requires all states to extradite fugitives to each other on demand.
A state need not inform ICE of an illegal alien’s presence. It certainly need not arrest the alien and hold him for ICE. But it may not harbor the alien, or obstruct ICE’s efforts to arrest him. It cannot prevent ICE agents from entering the state, going wherever they have a legal right to go, and arresting whomever they have a legal right to arrest. All it can do is stand on the side and refuse to help.
Milhouse, do you think prefacing every statement you make to people who disagree with you by calling them ‘liars’ helps you look good?
Everyone knows you’re hoping that the ‘repetition can make a falsehood into an accepted truth’ thing will work in your favor, but, since you’ve told us all what you are everything you’re doing is pretty obvious.
Including this.
And, quite frankly, your formulation of these two things, ‘enforcing’ and obeying’ seems always, weirdly, to result in explaining that what the Democrats are doing is right, and what the Republicans are doing is wrong, nasty, and probably racist.
Only thing that matters is get Trump
Out SC should have stepped in a long time ago
Cowards
“Only thing that matters is get Trump”
Bingo…who cares it is overturned on appeals…they NEED a headline saying CONVICTED…..
Charges be damned…
Facts be damned….
The SC doesn’t “step in”. Cases are appealed and make their way up to the SC eventually traveling through the court system.
SCOTUS has not intervened because the current Judge denied Trump’s motion to stay the case until SCOTUS rules on his Presidential immunity. The next legal move would be to appeal the denial and go up the chain.
Also, SCOTUS has to tread carefully because granting too much blanket POTUS immunity can be applied to Dem malfeasance in office.
I predict that they will not rule in favor of Trump on that particular case because of the legal precedent it sets.
Well to be fair that is how the system is supposed to work so that political parties don’t start playing games and go after their political enemies.
Trump should be affirmed as having absolute immunity, like every President before him has enjoyed without question, and should bring every case against him to a shuddering and IMMEDIATE halt.
No president has acted like they have absolute immunity. This is an absurd statement to make. If that were true nixon wouldn’t have needed a pardon would he. And if absolute immunity were a thing you wouldn’t have a presidency would you. Do you even think before you write stuff?
He has absolute immunity for his official acts. Nobody disputes that. And he doesn’t have it for his personal acts. Nobody disputes that either. The entire argument is over how to classify any given act.
is this not abuse of the judicial process?
As far as I am concerned, he has interjected his family into the case and should be referred to the judicial disciplinary board for a violation of the NY counterpart of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The fact that his daughter is fundraising off of case for Biden itself should be enough.
It seems odd to me that the judges daughter can fundraise due to the actions of her father but Trump can’t point out what a conflict this is.
Is that a fact? Or is that just Trump trash-talking without evidence?
Last year, when Merchan asked the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics for an opinion on the matter, he represented that the daughter had “no interests that could be substantially affected by the proceeding”.
If the facts have changed since then, or if they were misrepresented in the first place, then that’s significant and should be brought to the panel’s attention.
It appears to be a fact. It has been extensively reported that she has used her father’s court as a subject matter in fundraising appeals. I admit that I typed that assertion with a broad stroke. However I stand by my belief the judge has unusually interjected his family into the case when he made them the subject of an order. Unprecedented in my experience. I have seen cases that come close, but in those instances, and I have been involved in such, a chambers meeting is had and the matter addressed in that fashion.
Can you link to such a report, from a reliable source?
” from a reliable source?”
…from an approved leftist or Democrat propaganda resource…
It wasnt hush money it was one of millions of nondisclosure agreements signed every year
Had Trump filed it as a campaign expense THAT wouldve caused a teapot tempest
Apparently statutes of limitations exist only for progressives to pick and choose
“To save Our Democracy!”
Money paid in return for an NDA is hush money. That’s what the term means. There’s nothing wrong with it. The prosecutor isn’t even alleging it was wrong to pay it. The case is only about how the money was accounted for.
According to Trump’s former lawyer, Joe Tacapina, there was no accounting made as none was necessary because the reimbursements to Cohen were written on personal checks, and never claimed as legal expenses nor deductions,..and btw, what is the point of hush money if you have to publicize the payment?
Ah, but the prosecutor *is* claiming it was wrong to pay the extortionist. He had to use supposed Federal campaign violations in order to jack up his NY case to felony levels, which would have been somewhat correct if Trump had used campaign funds to pay her (because paying an extortionist is *not* a campaign expense). No Federal offense = No NY felony = Statute of limitations closed = Case closed.
Didn’t Daniels shake-down Trump for the payment?
Perhaps. It hasn’t been proven, but it’s a reasonable supposition.
Crazy-eyes Harry Litman takes the Trump Derangement Syndrome side
Judge SHUTS DOWN Trump’s PETTY bid to delay trial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJuwkR20ZdM