ReportWire

Tag: juan merchan

  • Trump Won’t Be Sentenced Before Election Day

    Trump Won’t Be Sentenced Before Election Day

    Photo: Justin Lane/Getty Images

    Donald Trump won’t be sentenced before Election Day in his Manhattan criminal trial, Judge Juan Merchan ruled on Friday. It amounts to a win for the former president’s legal team that has repeatedly tried to delay or move the proceedings after their client was found guilty in May of 34 counts felony counts, making him the first U.S. president in history to be convicted of a crime. A new sentencing hearing has been scheduled for November 26. This is how we got here.

    Back in April 2023, Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg unveiled his office’s indictment accusing the former president of falsifying business records in connection to an election-year cover-up of an alleged past affair with Stormy Daniels. Trump has long denied that an affair ever occurred and pleaded not guilty in the matter. Despite numerous legal challenges, the trial commenced one year later, featuring weeks of testimony from former Trump insiders such as former White House aide Hope Hicks and his ex-lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen. But the 12-member jury would go on to convict Trump on all 34 counts on their second day of deliberations, with Merchan initially scheduling his sentencing for July.

    With Trump in the middle of another bid for the White House, he and his legal team have sought to delay his sentencing with the aim of overturning his conviction entirely. Their latest weapon came in June as the Supreme Court issued its decision on presidential immunity, ruling that past and future presidents couldn’t be prosecuted for official acts taken while in office but could face repercussions for private acts. The decision has been a boon for Trump, disrupting the two pending federal cases against him and likely ensuring those matters won’t go to trial prior to the election.

    Trump’s lawyers soon filed a motion seeking to vacate Trump’s conviction citing the Court’s decision, claiming that evidence that would fall under presidential immunity was used to prosecute their client. In their filing, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove specifically cited communications between Trump and Hicks, a White House employee, as well as tweets sent while Trump was in office as “official acts” that shouldn’t have been allowed at trial since they involved Trump in his official role as president.

    Merchan agreed to push the sentencing hearing back to September 18 with the intent of ruling on the immunity argument prior to the proceedings. On Friday, Merchan announced that he will once again delay Trump’s sentencing, pushing the hearing beyond Election Day to November 26. In his four page letter, the judge said the sentencing will be moved “to avoid any appearance- however unwarranted -that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate.” Merchan also said he would hand down his decision on the defense’s immunity argument on November 12.

    As they awaited Merchan’s decision, Trump’s legal team pursued additional means: filing a motion requesting to move the case into federal court, once again citing a conflict with the Supreme Court’s immunity decision. This is familiar territory for Trump’s attorneys, who unsuccessfully sought to move the case out of state court last year before proceedings began by arguing that the actions allegedly taken by Trump constituted official acts.

    On Tuesday, Alvin Hellerstein, the federal judge who denied their last attempt to take the case out of New York, once again rejected their request and referenced back to his earlier ruling. “Nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority,” Hellerstein wrote in his decision.

    After Hellerstein’s ruling, Trump filed a notice of appeal, indicating that he intends to appeal the ruling to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, prosecutors from Bragg’s office sent a letter to Merchan, writing that there is now “no basis” to delay Trump’s sentencing following Hellerstein’s rejection.

    The effects of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision can be keenly felt in Trump’s two federal cases. In July, Aileen Cannon, the controversial Florida federal judge, dismissed the Justice Department’s classified-documents case against Trump, citing the Court’s ruling. Special counsel Jack Smith has since appealed her decision, asking the appeals court to reinstate the case.

    Smith has also filed a revised superseding indictment in the federal government’s election-subversion case, keeping the charges against Trump intact while removing certain allegations that could potentially run afoul of the Court’s ruling. The new filing takes out all references to former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark as well as allegations that Trump sought to use the Justice Department to challenge election results and support an election-fraud scheme.

    Nia Prater

    Source link

  • Here are all the bad things witnesses have said about Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer who is set to testify Monday

    Here are all the bad things witnesses have said about Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer who is set to testify Monday

    (CNN) — Nobody has anything nice to say about Michael Cohen.

    Donald Trump’s former fixer and lawyer is expected to take the stand Monday as the key witness in the Manhattan district attorney’s case against the former president, prepared to give testimony connecting to Trump the $130,000 hush money payment Cohen made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.

    Through three weeks of testimony, jurors have already heard plenty about Cohen through numerous witnesses, who have painted an unflattering portrait of an aggressive, impulsive and unlikeable attorney.

    Jeremy Herb, Kara Scannell, Lauren del Valle and CNN

    Source link

  • Trump Slams ‘Highly Biased’ Judge After Being Threatened With Arrest If He Doesn’t Attend Hush Money Trial

    Trump Slams ‘Highly Biased’ Judge After Being Threatened With Arrest If He Doesn’t Attend Hush Money Trial

    Screenshot: LiveNow From Fox

    The judge presiding over Donald Trump’s ‘hush money’ trial warned that if the former President does not attend court proceedings each day, he will be subject to arrest.

    The trial, which began Monday with several motions and jury selection, has garnered significant attention. It is historic in nature and could have implications for Trump’s political and legal future.

    Jesse Rodriguez, MSNBC’s Vice President of Editorial and Booking, reported on the matter on social media.

    “Trump has to be in the courtroom every day for the duration of his criminal trial,” he writes.

    Rodriguez quotes Judge Juan Merchan as saying, “If you do not show up there will be an arrest.”

    RELATED: Trump Issues Message To The American People: ‘Do Not Despair And Do Not Lose Hope’

    Trump Hush Money Judge Threatens Arrest

    A transcript of the New York court proceedings provided by NBC News further shows Merchan’s seriousness in his threat.

    “If you deliberately fail to appear in court when required, then any proceeding in your case, including hearing, trial and, if you are convicted, sentence, can and will continue in your absence,” he states.

    “A warrant for your arrest will be issued and you will be subject to separate prosecution and separate punishment for bail jumping no matter what happens in this case. Do you understand?”

    The presumptive GOP nominee for President railed against Merchan’s decision on Truth Social. He notes that the judge is essentially preventing him from attending his son’s high school graduation. Not to mention restricting him from attending Supreme Court arguments on immunity claims in another criminal case.

    “In Addition to being prohibited from attending my son Barron’s High School Graduation, I have just learned that the highly biased Judge in the Soros ‘appointed’ D.A. Alvin Bragg’s Witch Hunt Case, will not allow me to attend the historic PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY argument in front of The United States Supreme Court,” on Thursday, April 25th (next week!).” he writes.

    “This shows such great disdain and disrespect for our Nation’s Highest Court, especially for a topic so important as Presidential Immunity, without which our Country would never be the same!”

    RELATED: Flashback – Presidential Candidate John Edwards Acquitted On Campaign Finance Charge, Hillary Clinton Only Paid Fine for Violation

    Keeping Him Off The Campaign Trail

    Trump also posted a clip of Fox News personality Laura Ingraham commenting on his ‘hush money’ case. Ingraham notes that sure, the left would love jail time for the former President.

    But if that doesn’t work out, this judge’s decision gives them another prize.

    “Their ultimate fantasy, of course, is a guilty verdict,” says Ingraham. “But even short of that, they hope that keeping Donald Trump off the campaign trail – and any sort of details that emerge. That will all turn the tide for Biden in November.”

    “You cannot risk, after all, the people actually choosing their own president.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R30Wlon06w0

    This criminal trial over alleged ‘hush money’ payments to porn star Stormy Daniels is practically unprecedented.

    You may recall that John Edwards, a significant frontrunner at one point during the 2008 Democrat primary, was indicted by a federal grand jury in North Carolina on six felony charges stemming from efforts to conceal an affair by using campaign contributions.

    The Justice Department accused him of funneling nearly $1 million in donations to his pregnant mistress.

    But the case didn’t get very far. Edwards was acquitted on one campaign finance violation charge while the others resulted in mistrials. The DOJ would later drop the charges and decline to pursue a retrial.

    Why? Because his presidential campaign had been ruined and Edwards walked away from politics. If Trump were not running, and he was not a threat to President Biden, this trial would likely not be happening.

    Follow Rusty on X

    Rashida Tlaib Snaps When Reporter Asks If She’ll Condemn ‘Death To America’ Chants In Her District

    Rusty Weiss

    Source link

  • Trump’s Last Try at Slowing His Hush-Money Trial Is Truly Desperate

    Trump’s Last Try at Slowing His Hush-Money Trial Is Truly Desperate

    With just a week to go, Donald Trump is once again attempting to delay the start of his highly anticipated hush-money trial in New York City. His odds of success are extremely long.

    The New York Times reports that Trump intends to file a lawsuit against Juan Merchan, the judge presiding over the case, whom Trump has repeatedly assailed on social media. The filing has not yet been made public, but CNBC reports that Trump’s legal team is seeking a delay in the trial as they file two motions to an appeals court. In one, they’re asking for a delay in the trial as they seek to have the trial moved outside of Manhattan. In the other, Trump’s attorneys are asking for a stay on a gag order Merchan recently imposed on Trump. Jury selection in the trial is set to begin on Monday, April 15.

    Later that day, an appeals-court judge denied Trump’s request to pause the trial and consider a new location, per the Associated Press. On Tuesday, another appeals judge also denied his attempt to delay proceedings over his challenge to the gag order. Proceedings were already delayed from its original March 25th date to allow for both sides to review newly submitted documents.

    In late March, Merchan set a gag order in the trial, barring Trump from making statements about witnesses and potential jurors as well as attorneys, prosecutors, court staff, and their families. However, the judge was forced to amend the order a week later after the former president made several direct attacks on Merchan’s daughter Loren, a Democratic strategist, on social media. Under the new order, Trump is banned from making statements about the families of Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg as well as Merchan, though he is still allowed to make public comments on either man themselves.

    This is just the latest attempt by Trump to delay the pending trial. Previously, the former president has called for Merchan’s recusal and asked for the trial to be pushed back until the Supreme Court has weighed in on his argument that he has presidential immunity from prosecution. Merchan denied his request to wait for SCOTUS’s ruling and has yet to weigh in on Trump’s recent call for his recusal. The judge previously declined to step down from the case back in August.

    In April 2023, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors allege that, ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Trump directed his former attorney Michael Cohen to facilitate a payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence about an alleged past affair. They claim that Trump then altered Trump Organization records to hide the true purpose of the money.


    See All



    By Nia Prater

    Source link

  • Judge finds no conflict for Trump attorney over Stormy Daniels communications in hush money case | CNN Politics

    Judge finds no conflict for Trump attorney over Stormy Daniels communications in hush money case | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    A New York Supreme Court judge ruled that 2018 communications with adult film star Stormy Daniels should not sideline defense attorney Joe Tacopina from representing former President Donald Trump in his criminal trial related to an alleged hush money scheme to silence Daniels.

    Daniels’ communications with Tacopina and others at his firm included details relating to Daniels’ situation when she was seeking legal representation in 2018, her current lawyer, Clark Brewster, told CNN in March.

    Brewster, who claimed the communications show a disclosure of confidential information from Daniels, said he gave the exchanges to prosecutors. Ethics experts told CNN at the time that limits could be placed on Tacopina, including disqualification.

    Instead, Tacopina won’t question Daniels if she takes the stand at trial. “The court accepts your suggestion that you do not participate in the examination of Ms. Daniels if she is called as a witness at trial,” Judge Juan Merchan wrote.

    Tacopina has maintained there is no conflict of interest and said no confidential information was shared with him or his office.

    Merchan ultimately sided with Trump’s lawyer in a letter penned earlier this month telling Tacopina that he accepts the defense attorney’s representations that there is no conflict.

    The judge also said he’d revisit the issue with Trump at his next court appearance in February.

    “I have said from Day One there is no conflict. Now the court has said the same,” Tacopina told CNN Monday in response to the letter.

    Prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office first flagged the potential conflict to Merchan at Trump’s arraignment in April, saying Daniels will likely be a witness at Trump’s criminal trial.

    Trump, who has denied the alleged affair with Daniels, has pleaded not guilty to charges related to the alleged hush money scheme.

    Merchan instructed the former president to seek advice from other attorneys on the matter while it played out.

    Since the April arraignment, the parties submitted briefs and met for a sealed proceeding in July to further discuss the potential conflict, according to Merchan’s letter.

    Source link

  • $35 political contribution to Democrats raises fresh scrutiny of Judge Merchan | CNN Politics

    $35 political contribution to Democrats raises fresh scrutiny of Judge Merchan | CNN Politics



    CNN
     — 

    Judge Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal case in New York, donated $35 in political contributions to Democrats in 2020, including a $15 contribution to the campaign of Trump’s opponent, President Joe Biden.

    The political donations are undoubtedly small, but they nevertheless raise questions about Merchan’s impartiality as he has come under attack by the former president as a “Trump-hating judge.”

    “While the amounts here are minimal, it’s surprising that a sitting judge would make political donations of any size to a partisan candidate or cause,” said Elie Honig, a senior CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor.

    According to federal election records, Merchan made the three donations in July 2020 through ActBlue, an online fundraising platform for Democratic candidates and causes.

    Merchan contributed $15 earmarked for the Biden campaign, and made two $10 contributions, one earmarked to the Progressive Turnout Project, a voter outreach organization, and another to Stop Republicans, a subsidiary of the Progressive Turnout Project.

    Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University, said that New York, like most US jurisdictions, has adopted language from the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from “soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate.”

    “The contribution to Biden and possibly the one to ‘Stop Republicans’ would be forbidden unless there is some other explanation that would allow them,” Gillers said.

    But Gillers said that the donation “would be viewed as trivial, especially given the small sums.” He said if a complaint was made, the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct would remind the judge of the rules.

    Asked if this could be grounds for a legal challenge or recusal, Gillers said, “Absolutely not. This does not come anywhere near the kind of proof required for recusal.”

    Trump has been attacking Merchan and his family, including his daughter, whose political consulting firm did work for the Biden campaign and now-Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign. Trump has also complained about Merchan for presiding over the case against the Trump Organization, which was convicted on tax fraud charges late last year.

    CNN’s John Miller reports that the New York Police Department is tracking numerous threats against Merchan but has not seen specific, credible threats.

    An attorney for Trump on Thursday condemned those making threats against Merchan. Joe Tacopina, one of the lawyers representing Trump in the case, told CNN the threats were “appalling and we condemn anyone participating in such behavior.”

    Trump lawyer Susan Necheles declined to comment on the donations. But the former president’s political allies are pointing to the contributions to argue the judge should remove himself from the case.

    “He donated to Joe Biden’s campaign. He should get off this case. And this judge has a history, with President Trump, in prior cases,” Mike Davis, a former Republican chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee and founder of a conservative judicial advocacy group, told CNN’s Pamela Brown. “He finds out that this judge actually donated to Biden’s campaign. So, that at least raises the appearance of impartiality – the appearance that this judge could not be impartial against President Trump.”

    Karen Friedman Agnifilo, a CNN legal analyst and former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said that the political donations amount to an “unforced error” for Merchan.

    “Judge Merchan has a reputation of being a fair down the middle judge, however, donating to a defendant’s political rival can cause the appearance of a conflict, even where there is none, and creates an unforced error in this case involving Trump,” she said.

    A search of federal election databases does not turn up any additional political contributions for Merchan. New York state campaign finance records show that he gave a $99 contribution in 2002 to Rolando Acosta, who has served as a New York state appeals court judge since 2017.

    A source familiar with the court system said that the court administration doesn’t monitor judges’ personal affairs. The decision to recuse from the case would be up to Merchan himself.

    If he doesn’t, however, Trump’s lawyers could appeal the matter to a New York state appeals court.

    A spokesperson for the courts said, “We decline to comment on pending cases.”

    Source link