Are you suggesting that if Trump is convicted and sentenced to a prison term that he might be allowed out on bail (and become the next president) whilst appealing the conviction?
Post conviction bail, unlike pre-trial bail is not a constitutional right. Although most states allow it, it's rarely granted when long sentences are involved and there is a flight risk.
In the case of less serious crimes and shorter sentences, it's usualy only granted if the lower court has made an error that is likely to result in reversal in the defendant’s favor, or the error is so constitutionally egregious that the defendant deserves a new trial.
Given the level of interlocutory appeals in Trump's cases to evaulate constitutional law, it's perhaps unlikely there will be any grounds to appeal that which has already been comprehensively reviewed through the appellate system.
An error likely to reverse any conviction is perhaps also unlikely given the calibre of prosecutorial team and their lawyering.
The only way I can see Trump getting post conviction bail is if the justice system, or individual players therein are too afraid to imprison him for their own benefit, but if that were the case, why would he have been indicted and held to account in the first place?
Whilst I agree that the US hasn't been held accountable for it's war crimes and other destructive conduct (neither has the UK and many other countries), I see that as a seperate subject from the one I raised with this blog. Maybe I'll get to that one day, but it would require a lot of reading and research on my part.
I disagree that holding Trump to account for his actions is just a time killer. It's an existential issue where the US system is under threat.
Whilst I agree with you that many parts of that system warrant change, Trump and the Republican extremists are attempting to create change in the opposite direction from that which I would like to see for the American people. I'm particulary concerned for the welfare of non-white and other already oppressed citizens, including women.
So, Mar-a-Lago was raided on the 8th August 2022, Trump's announcement to run was on the 15th November 2022 and he was first indicted on the 25th March 2023.
His announcement was preceded at least by Corey Stapleton on the 11th November 2022, candidates can announce at any time and it looks like most candidates who register are never even heard of.
Trump's timing does look a little contrived though, I agree. I wonder if he would have run if it weren't for his legal woes.
So Judge Chutkin has ruled Trump can be criminally prosecuted now he's no longer president and the appellate court in this civil case has ruled that actions committed as part of his campaign to be re-elected aren't covered by by the presidential duty protections anyway.
It's appears to be more a case of trussed up like a kipper than finding a loophope.
Either Trump's legal team is utterly incompetent, or Trump's only hope is using the publicity and any delays to get himself re-elected. They're certainly not showing any signs of a valid defense, or proper conduct.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when Judge Wallace's ruling regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment goes to the Colorado Supreme Court. It's unlikely that her evaluation that Trump did engage in insurrection will be overturned given that centers on stated fact. Judge Wallace directly witnessed the evidence and testimony, therefore Colorado Supreme Court is unlikely to challenge it having not.
However, the ruling that the presidential office is not an office, or that the presidential oath does not oblige the president to uphold the constitution is a point of interpretation, rather than fact. Those concepts may, or may not be overruled.
It has been suggested that the bizarre incongruity of finding Trump's actions met the criteria of insurrection, but ruling that the 14th Amendment applies to everyone except the president may have been a function of fear and intimidation.
Did you know superglue was originally created for first aid purposes in military battle settings?
It meant soldiers could glue small cuts and splits together and remain operational.
It's also useful when using treatments that promote accelerated healing, such as steroid creams. If you use them on broken skin you run the risk of trapping micro-organisms and developing abscesses.
I highly recommend it, particularly because it stops the pain and bleeding after the initial mild sting of application.
And during those historical changes there have been five mass extinctions.
Duh.
Ye-ah, that's kinda the point.
We needed and need the eco-system stability of the Holocene era to thrive and survive.
Duh.
As we transition into the Anthropocene era of the sixth mass extinction we have a choice: continue to behave as we have in the last 100 years knowing that our children and grandchildren are going to suffer the consequences of our stupidity and selfishness, or try to claw back from the major tipping points before the narrow window of opportunity closes.
We clawed back from the damage we did to the ozone layer and are back in the safe zone. We know we can create change.
Aillen Cannon was nominated to become a judge by Trump when he was in office and was confirmed by the Senate in November 2020.
Judges are assigned cases randomly.
The issue with Judge Cannon is that she appears to be exhibiting bias in favour of the defendants in the documents case, not that she was deiberately assigned the case for that purpose.
There has been some suggestion that she should either adhere to the law and legal protocol from now on, or if she can't, recuse herself. So far, Jack Smith has abstained from filing that particular motion.
Early on she had one of her rulings overturned by the court of appeal on the grounds she had no legal authority to make the decision. Since then, she appears to be adopting a strategy of taking her decisions right up to the legal line, coupled with snarkily attacking the prosecution for no justifiable reason.
He was involved in trying to overturn the results of the last election and routinely in contact with Trump prior to J6. This includes a closed door meeting on January 5th where he was warned by fellow Republicans that his plans to invalidate the presidential election results would lead to a constitutional and political catastrophy.
I've just looked and much to my surprise, colour TV broadcasting in England started the year I was born with a single transmission of Petula Clarke in concert.
We must have had an early colour model because I'm pretty sure I was still in infant school when we had it. I reckon I was 6 years old at the most, so c1973. I didn't realise we were so hip.
I have a pretty clear memory of the excitement of it being 'installed' and it switching on and off at the mere touch of a rectangular clicking push button...and being warned that if I kept doing it, it would break.
Now you come to mention it, I think the installation by the salesman involved waiting for a moment after it had been plugged in before switching it on. I can't imagine it would have been left plugged in when we went out, mind. It still must have warmed up pretty quickly, like in a matter of seconds, rather than an erratic several minutes like our old black and white one.
You've just reminded me of having to turn the TV on several minutes before a scheduled programme to allow the valves to warm up, and being awed by a new colour set that was instantaneously turn on and off-able.
In the interests of avoiding future claims that it was a witch hunt, that his first amendment rights were violated during his presdential campaign, or that holding him to account for his alleged criminal actions, he has been given more leeway than any other US citizen.
In that respect he is being allowed to manipulate the justice system to his advantage with his rhetoric and personal narratives.
On the other hand, as cunning as he is, he appears to lack the acuity to realise when he's being given enough rope to hang himself. As Judge Engoron pointed out, if Trump continues to avoid answering direct questions, he's going to assume the worst of him and in favour of the prosecution. That's fairly easy for most people to understand, so Trump either has an intellectual, or social deficit in this area, or he just doesn't want to pubicly admit the worst is in fact true.
It also appears that the prosecution failed to object during Trump's testimony on many occasions, a point which Judge Engorn raised with the prosecution. The prosecution allowed him to continue unabated, however, as it seems Trump doesn't have the sense not to incriminate himself when left to rant for long enough, either.
Apparantly, Trump's testimony was being used to grift off of his supporters even as he was on the stand boasting about how much money he had as a defense for his actions.
So, you're sayin he wasn't an aggressive person because he mostly won wars when he invaded to build his empire, rather than lost wars when he invaded to build his empire.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,986)
Presidential Immunity
Are you suggesting that if Trump is convicted and sentenced to a prison term that he might be allowed out on bail (and become the next president) whilst appealing the conviction?Post conviction bail, unlike pre-trial bail is not a constitutional right. Although most states allow it, it's rarely granted when long sentences are involved and there is a flight risk.
In the case of less serious crimes and shorter sentences, it's usualy only granted if the lower court has made an error that is likely to result in reversal in the defendant’s favor, or the error is so constitutionally egregious that the defendant deserves a new trial.
Given the level of interlocutory appeals in Trump's cases to evaulate constitutional law, it's perhaps unlikely there will be any grounds to appeal that which has already been comprehensively reviewed through the appellate system.
An error likely to reverse any conviction is perhaps also unlikely given the calibre of prosecutorial team and their lawyering.
The only way I can see Trump getting post conviction bail is if the justice system, or individual players therein are too afraid to imprison him for their own benefit, but if that were the case, why would he have been indicted and held to account in the first place?