Donald Trump really thought he could hang justice by the neck in the United States after winning the election, and so did we. However, Judge Juan Merchan says otherwise.
A witch hunt, harassment, political persecution, political hack job, and media circus,—Trump has called his Hush Money conviction by all such names. But isn’t that the Hush Money case has flashed with hope for justice for the first time after the temporary suspension of Trump’s sentencing following his Nov. 2024 election victory. And guess what? His ‘presidential immunity’ isn’t saving him from this case anymore.
Despite being seven months of conviction, Trump has not been anywhere near jail. Why? Two words: presidential immunity. On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States, ing presidential immunity for official acts committed by the seated president. (via Business Insider)
Soon after, Trump’s lawyers began flashing the immunity card against the court in December, arguing that the case was invalid due to Trump’s 2024 election. And, we thought that would guarantee a full stop on his case file. But, in an irrevocable spirit of justice, another suit was launched in court to question Trump’s immunity. Judge Juan Merchan began investigating whether the evidence presented against Trump constituted official actions and whether it influenced the verdict.
This meant prosecutors would have to call another grand jury to bring a new indictment if the conviction were overturned. But if the ruling came against the immunity nullifying his conviction, the sentencing could be vacated, but not Trump’s guilty status. (via originally anticipated by Sept. 6, finally arrived on Monday, Dec, 16, and it ruled that Trump has no immunity protection in this case.
In his 41-page decision, Judge Merchan asserted that Donald Trump’s Hush Money conviction should not be overturned due to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan district attorney’s office had nothing to do with Trump’s official actions as president. According to Merchan, the evidence that Trump’s attorneys were contesting was “entirely related to unofficial conduct” and should not be protected by immunity.
“This Court concludes that if error occurred regarding the introduction of the challenged evidence, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt,” Merchan wrote. “Even if this Court did find that the disputed evidence constitutes official acts under the auspices of the Trump decision, which it does not, Defendant’s motion is still denied as introduction of the disputed evidence constitutes harmless error and no mode of proceedings error has taken place.” (via CNN)
Merchan deemed Trump’s “act of falsifying records to cover up the payments so that the public would not be made aware” decidedly an “unofficial act.” This means that “the communications to further that same cover-up” shall be deemed “unofficial” too. So, since the nature of Trump’s crime was “purely a personal item” (via CBS) of Trump and did not come from his place as the President, his conviction and sentencing cannot be overturned by immunity protection.
Published: Dec 17, 2024 05:03 am