We publish the objective news, period. If you want the facts, then sign up below and join our movement for objective news:


Latest News

Trump Seeks To Utilize SCOTUS Ruling To Challenge New York Verdict

 July 3, 2024

In a bold legal maneuver, Donald Trump's legal team is invoking a recent Supreme Court decision to postpone his upcoming sentencing in a New York criminal case.

Following a landmark Supreme Court ruling, former President Donald Trump's lawyers have sought to delay his sentencing related to a New York hush money case, citing broad presidential immunity, as the Daily Mail reports.

On May 30, Trump was convicted of falsifying business records, marking a historic moment as the first criminal trial against a former U.S. president. Trump's legal team, in a swift response to a Supreme Court decision issued on the same day as their request, argued that the ruling on presidential immunity should impact their client’s ongoing legal proceedings.

The defense's letter to Judge Juan M. Merchan highlighted that some evidence presented during the trial was now inadmissible under the new Supreme Court guidelines on presidential immunity. This immunity was not initially claimed in the earlier stages of the trial.

The case, prosecuted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, has remained a focal point of media and public attention, though Bragg's office has yet to respond to the latest legal move by Trump's team.

Trump's Historic Conviction and Its Impact on Politics

Trump’s conviction on all counts by a Manhattan Criminal Court jury came after nearly ten hours of deliberation. This verdict could have significant implications for the 2024 presidential race, stirring political and public discourse.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, involved in overseeing certain aspects of the case, has noted that the actions in question were of a personal nature and not part of official presidential duties.

This distinction is crucial given the new Supreme Court decision advocating for presidential immunity.

To ensure an efficient trial process, Judge Merchan had earlier mandated simplified pre-filing summaries from both legal parties.

Legal Arguments and Public Reactions

The charges stemmed from a $130,000 payment intended to suppress allegations of an affair during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Prosecutors labeled these payments as fraudulent and designed to influence the election outcome.

The defense, however, maintained that the payments to Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer at the time, were legitimate legal expenses.

This argument was central to their case, with closing arguments offering contrasting views of the evidence and witness credibility.

Throughout the trial and its aftermath, Trump vehemently criticized the proceedings.

In a statement outside the court, he described the trial as "a rigged trial by a conflicted judge," asserting his innocence and framing the charges as a political attack by the Biden administration.

Voices from the Trial

Donald Trump Jr., echoing his father’s sentiments, dismissed the verdict as "a joke and such bull****." In stark contrast, Bragg emphasized the integrity of the judicial process, noting, "The only voice that matters is the voice of the jury and the jury has spoken. Donald J. Trump has been convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records."

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass argued during the trial that the concealment of payments pointed directly to Trump, who had the most to gain. Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche countered, asserting Trump’s innocence and challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.

In summary, the request to delay Trump's sentencing hinges on a pivotal Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. This development adds another layer to an already complex legal battle, highlighting the ongoing tension between past presidential actions and current legal accountability. Trump's defense team is leveraging this new ruling in a bid to influence the outcome of his sentencing, while public and political reactions continue to unfold.