>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Judge Juan Merchan of New York noted that the case’s circumstances largely pertained to Trump’s campaign activities rather than his presidential duties, pointing out that Trump’s legal team did not adequately raise the immunity issue during the trial. Similarly, Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein emphasized that the payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels were personal in nature, aimed at covering up a potentially embarrassing incident, rather than related to official presidential actions.
Trump’s conviction could paradoxically strengthen his case for presidential immunity. In his submission to the Supreme Court, he argued that prosecuting former presidents could lead to “years of post-office trauma,” used as a political weapon by opponents. This argument was acknowledged during the Supreme Court hearings, where Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted the “legitimate concern about prosecutorial abuse.”
Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, further cautioned that if Smith’s perspective prevails, it could expose current and future presidents to political blackmail and extortion. This argument finds resonance in the context of a state conviction initiated by an elected prosecutor, potentially influencing the Supreme Court’s decision on the extent of presidential protection.
However, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that any narrow interpretation of immunity would apply only to federal crimes, not state offenses. This distinction means that Trump’s case must navigate through New York’s appellate system, adhering to federalism principles which generally prevent federal courts from intervening in state cases unless absolutely necessary.
Trump might benefit from the unique approach taken by DA Bragg, particularly the utilization of federal election laws as a basis for a state crime conviction. Although the jury did not need to establish guilt based on violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, this aspect could serve as grounds for an appeal.
Moreover, Trump might argue that the overall prosecution infringed upon his federal rights. The jury instructions allowed a wide scope for conviction, which could be interpreted as undermining the impartiality and due process guaranteed by the Constitution.
Get Your FREE Trump 2024 Election Shirt – We’re Shipping It Right to You!
The claims of selective prosecution echo historical abuses, reminiscent of Lavrentiy Beria’s infamous “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”
Amidst these legal battles, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has called for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and another senior state prosecutor to testify about the case. This hearing is set to probe the alleged political motivations behind Trump’s prosecution, with significant implications for the legal treatment of federal officials.
This case not only challenges legal precedents but also stirs significant political and public discourse, indicating a complex legal journey ahead for all parties involved.
Isn’t it strange that a now convicted felon wanted a judge to not only give him a pass on 3 federal gun charges but ALL FUTURE charges. The judge was going to go light on the gun charges BUT another refused when it said all FUTURE chares. Hunter got greedy.