On Tuesday, a federal judge rejected Donald Trump’s request to intervene in his New York hush money criminal case.

The case is corrupt, but the New York courts are more corrupt.

Donald Trump tried to delay sentencing [and potential imprisonment] until after the election, which takes place during early voting.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that Trump had not satisfied the burden of proof needed for a federal court to take over.

Manhattan prosecutors objected to Trump‘s effort to delay post–trial decisions in the case while he sought to have the federal court step in.

In a letter, they argued that the state had no obligation to postpone the post-trial decisions until after the Hellerstein ruling.

https://www.independentsentinel.com/federal-judge-will-not-delay-trumps-sentencing-on-9-18/

>>21529273

The left remains relentless in its quest to throw as many obstacles in former President Donald Trump’s path as possible — and as Election Day nears, leftists are working overtime.

Special counsel Jack Smith is no exception, reviving his classified documents case against Trump in an effort to put the Republican presidential candidate behind bars.

“New indictment, meet the old indictment,” former U.S. DOJ Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark tells Glenn Beck. “It’s just the same as that old indictment. He’s just reformulated it to try to make it consistent with and fit everything into the third box.”

“The box of everything President Trump did that he had indicted him for the first time, is actually a set of private acts as opposed to a set of official acts, and, therefore, Jack Smith argues he’s not immune,” Clark explains.

“Are they doing this to smear him yet again, so late in the campaign? Or is this a plan just in case he wins, they think this will keep him out of office?” Glenn asks.

“They’re doing it for all of those reasons,” Clark says. “They absolutely want to block him anyway they can, so this is election interference. There’s no way that you should be issuing a new indictment like this using a new grand jury this close to a major presidential election.”

Glenn doesn’t like where this is going.

“I think they’re going to put him in jail in September,” he tells Clark.

Clark, who is preparing to be in Judge Merchan’s court in Manhattan on September 18 if the sentencing goes forward, is concerned as well.

“I bet Judge Merchan is going to go ahead and deny the immunity-based motion for a new trial, and then he’s going to do the sentencing, and I actually would not be surprised if he sentenced President Trump to prison,” Clark says.

However, if Trump is sentenced, there’s still a chance he could win the election.

“In the period after he’s inaugurated,” Clark explains, “any kind of imprisonment would have to be ended or suspended. It would be what lawyers call pre-empted by the Constitution since he would be the duly elected and inaugurated president of the United States.”

“He can’t be kept from exercising those functions by a state conviction,” he adds.

https://www.theblaze.com/shows/the-glenn-beck-program/trump-indictment-2669121404

A motion filed by Trump's attorneys on Tuesday revealed that 2024 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump plans to plead not guilty to the charges laid out in the superseding indictment filed on August 27 by special counsel Jack Smith. The motion also stated that Trump waived his right to be present at the arraignment.

"I, President Donald J. Trump, the above-named defendant, in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 10(b)(2), do hereby waive my right to be present at Arraignment and I authorize my attorneys to enter a plea of not guilty on my behalf to each and every count of the superseding indictment, Doc. 226. I further state that I have received a copy of the superseding indictment and reviewed it with my counsel," the one-page filing stated.

The 36-page superseding indictment charges Trump with the same counts that were present in the initial August 2023 indictment: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, and Conspiracy Against Rights.

In a court filing, Smith’s office wrote that the superseding indictment "was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case" and "reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions in Trump v. United States." The Supreme Court ruled on July 1 that a president does have absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers, though not for unofficial acts. The case was handed back down to the lower court to determine whether the actions Trump is being prosecuted are official or unofficial acts. The superseding indictment removed references to the Justice Department after the Supreme Court ruled that "Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-trump-to-plead-not-guilty-to-jack-smiths-j6-superseding-indictment

>>21529342

i was thinking double jeopardy might apply here, but after looking it up, it only applies after a conviction or an acquittal, the law does not even mention if the case is thrown out by the Supreme Court prior to trial

this seems like a Constitutional crisis (don't wanna sound like a drama queen)

>>21529358

>>21529406

stefani germanotta=lady gaga

>>21529421

agree, but why is he being allowed by biden's doj to continue on without any legal authority, or should i say, why aren't republicans doing something to stop him?

>>21529450

>>21529473

A Pennsylvania court Friday sided with left-wing special interests, blocking the state from enforcing part of a law that required mail ballots to be properly dated in order to be counted

In a 4-1 ruling, which saw President Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer — elected as a Republican — side with three elected Democrat judges, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania majority sided with the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union and the Black Political Empowerment Project, among others, declaring the “strict enforcement” of state law (Act 77) requiring election officials to reject improperly dated or undated mail-in ballots “unconstitutional.”

Calling the decision a “wholesale abandonment of common sense” made in an “untethered and unprecedented fashion,” Judge Patricia A. McCullough described in a scathing dissent how the court majority bent over backward to ensure Pennsylvania voters did not have to date their mail-in ballots:

“[T]o reach its desired end, the Majority today (1) finds jurisdiction where it does not exist, (2) ignores more than a century of sound Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Free and Equal Elections Clause, (3) applies strict scrutiny without any authority for doing so, (4) accepts Petitioners’ invitation to usurp the role of the General Assembly and re-write Act 77 of 2019 (Act 77), and, in a twist of tragic irony, (5) voids altogether absentee and mail-in voting in Pennsylvania.”

Act 77 was passed in 2019 as part of Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting law. State statute includes the requirement that “an absentee ‘elector shall. . .fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on’ the second, or outer, envelope ‘on which is printed the form of declaration of the elector,'” as cited in the majority opinion.

Arguing that the date requirement is a simple standard that does not deny voters franchise, as the majority claimed, McCullough concluded, “I must wonder whether walking into a polling place, signing your name, licking an envelope, or going to the mailbox can now withstand the Majority’s newly minted standard.”

The Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania — which intervened in the case in favor of upholding the law — argued that the date requirement advanced state interest in “preventing fraud,” pointing to a 2022 incident where the use of the requirement unearthed fraud committed by the daughter of a deceased Pennsylvanian.

The majority opinion, however, while citing “prior litigation,” stated that “the date on the outer mail-in ballot envelopes is not used to determine the timeliness of a ballot, a voter’s qualifications/eligibility to vote, or fraud. Therefore, the dating provisions serve no compelling government interest.”

https://thefederalist.com/2024/09/03/pennsylvania-court-says-improperly-dated-mail-ballots-must-be-counted-in-untethered-and-unprecedented-ruling/

>>21529478

>>21529565

>>21529660