Trump’s motion to postpone his NY sentencing rests on 3 claims. The first two seem frivolous. The third is actually plausible, but I think it’s wrong. ...
1/7
1/7
... First, Trump alleges lingering issues relating to his 3d attempt to have Justice Merchan recuse himself. One is that Merchan’s daughter’s alleged past criticism of Trump’s tweets implicates Justice Merchan’s pending immunity ruling. These claims are unintelligible. ...
/2
/2
... Second, Trump protests that allowing DANY to file a public sentencing memo containing a “threat of punishment” will “be harmful to the institution of the presidency.” That, also, seems frivolous. ...
/3
/3
... Last, he asserts a right to appeal of Justice Merchan’s immunity ruling before sentence is imposed. SCOTUS did, in fact, say that questions about whether an ex-president “may be held liable” for alleged official acts must be addressed at the “outset of a proceeding.” ...
/4
/4
... But the question in NY is *not* whether Trump can “be held liable for” official acts. No one claims his indictment was for official acts. The question is whether arguably official acts were improperly used *as evidence* of crimes concededly involving *unofficial acts.” ...
/5
/5
... SCOTUS discussed that issue in a different section of its ruling (§ III-C instead of § II-B) and Chief Justice Roberts never suggested that those questions also required an opportunity for pretrial review and appeal.
/6
/6
... In any case, the trial here took place before SCOTUS ruled. No pretrial hearing is possible. Ordinarily appeals occur after sentencing, and all issues are raised together. It would be bizarrely inefficient to allow an interlocutory appeal moments *before* sentencing.
/7-end
/7-end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
