Manhattan DA’s outrageous proposal to treat Trump’s hush money conviction as if he were dead ignites fierce legal battle over presidential immunity.
Yes, these lunatics want to lock up a president.
At a Glance
- Trump’s lawyers urge dismissal of hush money conviction, rejecting DA’s “absurd” proposals
- DA suggests treating case as if Trump died, freezing it, or noting conviction without sentencing
- Trump’s team argues proposals violate constitutional principles and presidential duties
- Case hinges on interpretation of presidential immunity, with Judge Merchan’s ruling pending
- Trump is first former president convicted of a crime and first convicted criminal elected to office
President Trump’s legal team has launched a scathing attack on the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, denouncing their latest tactics to uphold Trump’s hush money conviction as “absurd” and “irresponsible.” The DA’s office, in a move that has shocked legal experts, suggested treating the case as if Trump had died, effectively preserving the conviction without imposing a sentence.
They just will not give up!
The Manhattan DA’s office, seemingly desperate to maintain Trump’s conviction, has proposed a series of alternatives that raise serious constitutional questions. These include freezing the case until Trump leaves office, agreeing to no jail time for now, or simply noting the conviction without sentencing due to presidential immunity.
“To be clear, President Trump will never deviate from the public interest in response to these thuggish tactics,” Trump’s lawyers said.
These proposals have been met with fierce opposition from Trump’s legal team, who argue that the only acceptable outcome is overturning the conviction and dismissing the indictment. They contend that any other option would interfere with Trump’s ability to carry out his presidential duties and would set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.
Presidential Immunity: A Constitutional Showdown
At the heart of this legal battle lies the complex issue of presidential immunity. While the prosecution acknowledges this immunity, they argue it shouldn’t negate the jury’s verdict. Trump’s lawyers, however, maintain that the case itself is a violation of constitutional principles and undermines the very foundations of the presidency.
“This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed,” Trump aide Steven Cheung said in a statement.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary. It raises critical questions about how criminal proceedings against a sitting president should be handled and whether such cases can be pursued without compromising the functions of the highest office in the land.
In other news, Daniel Penny – the man recently found not guilty of manslaughter after defending subway passengers from unhinged criminal Jordan Nealy – is considering a wrongful prosecution lawsuit against Bragg.
Might Trump do the same? Crazier things have happened…
