https://thehill.com/regulation...ls-court-hush-money/

An appeals court panel took up President Trump’s bid to fight his hush money criminal conviction in federal court Wednesday, acknowledging the extraordinary prosecution coupled with the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision breaks new ground.

The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit must decide whether to open a path for Trump to attempt to throw out his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records by letting him advance his case in a federal forum, instead of New York state courts.

Trump argues he is entitled to a federal forum to make his case that the jury’s guilty verdict must be tossed in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling granting broad criminal immunity to former presidents.

The president’s lawyers concede he is not immune from the 34 felonies themselves, but they contend that prosecutors improperly included immunized evidence during the trial, like a White House aide’s testimony and Trump’s social media posts.

“The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,” Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall said. “He doesn’t have to introduce any of this evidence.”

“Federal officers get prosecuted all the time for things that have nothing to do with their job, but if a state or local attorney says, ‘We’re going to put into evidence things that have to do with the way you do your job,’ then they’ve triggered a uniquely federal interest,” he continued.

The appeals panel is not expected to conclusively resolve in their ruling how immunity applies. At this stage, Trump just needs to show it is a “colorable” — meaning plausible — defense.

But it remains unclear following the oral argument whether the panel was convinced he clears even that lower standard.

“Was there another case in which an evidentiary immunity related to a federal, or is claimed as a federal defense, has served as a basis for removal?” asked Judge Susan Carney, an appointee of former President Obama.

Wall acknowledged the situation arises “very rarely.”

But he argued “the point” of federal officer removal is that they’re entitled to a federal forum. If that’s true for the average federal officer, it must be true for the president and his “anomalous, one-of-its-kind prosecution,” he said.

Trump must clear other roadblocks, too, to emerge successful.

He must show the hush money prosecution relates to an act “under color” of his presidency, a potential complication given that his 34 charges stem from reimbursements for a hush money payment made before his presidency.

“Why wouldn’t that prong be understood to focus on the charged conduct and whether the charges themselves are for the relating to official acts?” Pérez pressed Wall at one point.

And regardless, federal law requires Trump to prove that he has “good cause” to pursue his removal effort since it came after his trial. Trump stresses the Supreme Court immunity decision didn’t land until he was convicted.

Steven Wu, appellate chief at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, argued that Trump waited two months after the Supreme Court’s immunity decision to mount the effort again.

“It is worse, not better, for questions of resolving disputes between federal and state courts that they first went to the state court fully briefed — not just immunity, but also recusal and sought a stay of the sentence,” Wu said. “He did so in a deliberate attempt to get state court relief there, and only then came to this court, or rather to the district court, to seek federal court relief.”

Judge Raymond Lohier, an appointee of Obama, asked then whether even if the panel agreed with Trump that the immunity decision rendered the case removable, there would be no good cause because of that delay.

“That’s correct,” Wu said.

Trump’s effort is his second such bid. He dropped the first effort after a federal judge before the trial rejected that the hush money case was sufficiently connected to his role as president.

The new bid is backed by his Justice Department, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case after he returned to the White House.

Though no clear direction emerged from the argument, all three judges acknowledged the uniqueness of the case.

“I think you might agree that this is a pretty extraordinary, highly unusual case,” Lohier told Wu. “Do you agree with that?”

“In some respects, yes, but in some respects, no,” Wu replied. “And what I’ll say is this: yes, it’s unusual for this criminal case to be taking place. The defendant is an unusual defendant.

“But it is very far from unusual for a criminal defendant, after being sentenced, to claim, one, that an intervening court decision favors his appeal, and two, that there were trial errors that he would like to object to,” he said. “Those are commonplace grounds.”

The immunized evidence is a berry interesting argument. If the use of “immunized evidence” was improperly admired, and not harmless error. President Trump’s convictions shall be void on substitute due process ground. Proving what I have said all along, “ Justice in our system is not an outcome, but a process.”

Such a ruling would not be setting aside the jury’s findings of guilty. Such a ruling would be as a matter of law the evidence was impressible for the jury to make factual findings upon. The truth of the matter, does not matter.


It is an extremely interesting argument. One that makes me go hmmm. I intellectually like it. There are some Justices on this Supreme Court I know will be agreeable. That is where this will end. This is the end of the beginning. It is not the beginning of the end.

It is an intelligent, if novel argument. One that is being structured not for this court, but the S. Ct.

However, I think this is the kicker for now.

He must show the hush money prosecution relates to an act “under color” of his presidency, a potential complication given that his 34 charges stem from reimbursements for a hush money payment made before his presidency. Yet, I can I vision an option where that is not controlling. One, that focuses on the evidence relationship to Trump as president.

In a perfect world, from my point of view, the S. Ct., would use this case to course correct on the S. Ct.’s presidential immunity misadventure. That won’t happen, but it could.

quote:

“ Justice in our system is not an outcome, but a process.”

I don't think of it that way.

I think of it as the means (process) justifies the end (outcome).

Yes, the rule of law is a process (means) to assess truth that seeks an outcome accordingly.

Also, as I understood it, Trump wasn't convicted of paying hush money, but he instead directed and participated in falsifying records to cover it. IOW fraud.

And he did it outside the scope of the office of POTUS.

Appellate Courts review issues of law. The best to overturn facts is very high with appellate courts not permitted to reverse factual findings because the appellate court would have found those facts differently.

“Truth” has little to do with it. Process provided has everything to do w it.

The Presumption of Evidence which is a legal conclusion that must be sufficiently rebutted screams of a process focused system. The Defendant has no obligation to prove (and most times to disprove) anything. He sets innocent. Thus, justice requires his proof of guilt. A conviction that does not provide appropriate due process or based on errors in law does not rebut the presumption. Therefore, a person who is not guilty is convicted. Hence, requiring voiding the conviction. Big T “truth” is not part of that equation. We do not start out from a neutral position at trial. We start out from a position the prosecution has lost, “ If we take a verdict now before the close of proof, you would have to find not guilty.”

The argument advanced by President Trump’s team is purely a legal, substantive due process argument. The facts and “truth” have no relevancy. The relevancy of the facts are how they apply to substantive due process argument. Stated simply and in part as presented in the article, “Whether the trial judge errored in permitting evidence to be admitted that was immune behavior as President?”

It is smart regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Wish I had thought of it. It is going to have at least two, maybe more, sympathetic ears.

Of course, there is always harmless error doctrine. Harmless error is when impermissible evidence is allowed, but there was sufficient permissible evidence to base the verdict. Thus, the impermissible evidence does not void conviction being merely cumulative and not dispositive. Therefore, the conviction and sentence is not void.

You never want to be arguing harmless error. It is a Hail Mary. Yeah, Court we urinsted on ourselves, but we got enough in right that it did not matter. You are hoping enough judges want to stretch the rubber band to prevent overturning a conviction.

All of that is an interesting legal analysis but it fails to recognize what is really going on here. trump wants his case transferred to the DOJ because trump's DOJ will drop the case.

Oh yes. That is more novelty to transfer it after conviction.

It does seem like a potential unforced error though. The making of an unnecessary issue. The issue being using potential evidence that is presumed immune behavior. That potential error being to use evidence President Trump generated as president for non-presidential behavior.

To be fair, no one thought the S. Ct., would create a near total immunity for presidential misconduct.

I don't think presidential immunity pertains to pre presidential actions

I also think the technical construction of the fraud felonies has critical issues

LHeym, lawyer-like you are delving into what I call technicalities, and skimming right over the top thing which Mitchell points out.

Trump can get what he wants out of this mess ONLY if it's taken out of the State's realm into the fed.

As you said, it's issues of law, not reversal of factual findings. IOW, as I understand it, no new evidence may be presented. They are just going to argue on the application (process) of law.

I still take exception to what you say: “Truth” has little to do with it. Process provided has everything to do w it."

If truth has little to do with the process then untruth likewise.

I learned herein a quote from a defense lawyer, paraphrased: "I wouldn't know the truth if it bit me, but I know what admissible evidence is".

In Trump's case, the prosecution fulfilled their burden of proof with evidence thus the presumption is the conviction overwhelmed his lies with truth.

within the process a flaw of law application may exist, which may be sorted out. But as I understand it, that doesn't change the evidence on which the verdict was given.

That potential flaw, as I understand it, is some of the evidence or testimony can be tied to his term in office. But the events of the crime happened before his term.

With the SCOTUS immunity decision, the timing is important too. Is the appeal for retro application of immunity?

And of course, if the evidence in question were excluded, would the verdict be the same?

==============================================

Another example of what I'm saying is the evidence in the public sphere relating to his other indictments (fed) screamed guilt, so much so that the presumption of innocence seems ridiculous, in the court of public opinion.

I'm sure the courts would have functioned properly if his indictments had gone to trial, and his presumption of innocence as you explained would be intact. I'm just saying that IMO, the prosecutions had their burden of proof covered.

But he beat the whole rap on technicality, and "truth" by virtue of the rule of law and due process was thwarted.

================================================
Again:

“Truth has little to do with it. Process provided has everything to do w it."

"The Presumption of Evidence which is a legal conclusion that must be sufficiently rebutted screams of a process focused system."

That bothers me. I don't consider evidence as a conclusion, but part of the process.

Trump got his due process, and the thwarting of it with lies and stalling, was never fulfilled under the rule of law, but under the rule of technicality - the uniqueness of the situation of being elected. And the other unique aspects are SCOTUS allowing him to run in the first place, nixing the relevant part of the 14th, and then icing on Trump's cake with the immunity ruling.

In other aspects of life aside from the rule of law, evidence and facts have EVERYTHING to do with truth.

So, why would application of the rule of law and due process be different?

The answer may be lawyers.

You do not have a justice system

You have a CRIMINAL system!

That's why karma or perhaps Nemesis exists, Saeed.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Oh yes. That is more novelty to transfer it after conviction.

It does seem like a potential unforced error though. The making of an unnecessary issue. The issue being using potential evidence that is presumed immune behavior. That potential error being to use evidence President Trump generated as president for non-presidential behavior.

To be fair, no one thought the S. Ct., would create a near total immunity for presidential misconduct.

Is talking about past/pre-in office criminal issues while in office really considered as one of his duties as President? I have a hard time buying into that idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
That's why karma or perhaps Nemesis exists, Saeed.

Ah, ye olde pick and choose religion buffet.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The immunized evidence is a berry interesting argument. If the use of “immunized evidence” was improperly admired, and not harmless error. President Trump’s convictions shall be void on substitute due process ground. Proving what I have said all along, “ Justice in our system is not an outcome, but a process.”

Such a ruling would not be setting aside the jury’s findings of guilty. Such a ruling would be as a matter of law the evidence was impressible for the jury to make factual findings upon. The truth of the matter, does not matter.


It is an extremely interesting argument. One that makes me go hmmm. I intellectually like it. There are some Justices on this Supreme Court I know will be agreeable. That is where this will end. This is the end of the beginning. It is not the beginning of the end.

It is an intelligent, if novel argument. One that is being structured not for this court, but the S. Ct.

However, I think this is the kicker for now.

He must show the hush money prosecution relates to an act “under color” of his presidency, a potential complication given that his 34 charges stem from reimbursements for a hush money payment made before his presidency. Yet, I can I vision an option where that is not controlling. One, that focuses on the evidence relationship to Trump as president.

In a perfect world, from my point of view, the S. Ct., would use this case to course correct on the S. Ct.’s presidential immunity misadventure. That won’t happen, but it could.

So, aside from the arguable points you made in that post, you are saying that the appeal hinges on "The immunized evidence" if any, and harm.

You find that intellectually stimulating from a lawyer's perspective.

I too find it intellectually stimulating, but from a different POV. It's deep into the Founding principles and the constitution and church/state argument, etc., truth and process and outcomes and justice, all inclusive.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
You do not have a justice system

You have a CRIMINAL system!

As someone who has spent my entire professional life working in the civil justice system, I can categorically state that you are full of baloney, my friend. The American justice system works fine about 98% of the time. You only hear about the 2% that goes sideways.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
That's why karma or perhaps Nemesis exists, Saeed.

Ah, ye olde pick and choose religion buffet.

If I get started on that it won't be in response to your taunts.

I took the advice of another's suggestion herein, subscribed to Netflix, to watch the documentary on Osama bin Laden.

It's intriguing partially from the aspect that he thought of himself as God's warrior working at his direction to kill infidels.

Contrast that with the rule of law.

My response to Saeed was my way of being jokingly nice, but you didn't catch the irony, ironically.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
You do not have a justice system

You have a CRIMINAL system!

As someone who has spent my entire professional life working in the civil justice system, I can categorically state that you are full of baloney, my friend. The American justice system works fine about 98% of the time. You only hear about the 2% that goes sideways.

2 per cent are making a lot of noises very often lol

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The immunized evidence is a berry interesting argument. If the use of “immunized evidence” was improperly admired, and not harmless error. President Trump’s convictions shall be void on substitute due process ground. Proving what I have said all along, “ Justice in our system is not an outcome, but a process.”

Such a ruling would not be setting aside the jury’s findings of guilty. Such a ruling would be as a matter of law the evidence was impressible for the jury to make factual findings upon. The truth of the matter, does not matter.


It is an extremely interesting argument. One that makes me go hmmm. I intellectually like it. There are some Justices on this Supreme Court I know will be agreeable. That is where this will end. This is the end of the beginning. It is not the beginning of the end.

It is an intelligent, if novel argument. One that is being structured not for this court, but the S. Ct.

However, I think this is the kicker for now.

He must show the hush money prosecution relates to an act “under color” of his presidency, a potential complication given that his 34 charges stem from reimbursements for a hush money payment made before his presidency. Yet, I can I vision an option where that is not controlling. One, that focuses on the evidence relationship to Trump as president.

In a perfect world, from my point of view, the S. Ct., would use this case to course correct on the S. Ct.’s presidential immunity misadventure. That won’t happen, but it could.

So, aside from the arguable points you made in that post, you are saying that the appeal hinges on "The immunized evidence" if any, and harm.

You find that intellectually stimulating from a lawyer's perspective.

I too find it intellectually stimulating, but from a different POV. It's deep into the Founding principles and the constitution and church/state argument, etc., truth and process and outcomes and justice, all inclusive.

As indicted by the article, yes. I would add that it is not really an appeal at this point. Although, I did speak of it in appellate terms.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Oh yes. That is more novelty to transfer it after conviction.

It does seem like a potential unforced error though. The making of an unnecessary issue. The issue being using potential evidence that is presumed immune behavior. That potential error being to use evidence President Trump generated as president for non-presidential behavior.

To be fair, no one thought the S. Ct., would create a near total immunity for presidential misconduct.

Is talking about past/pre-in office criminal issues while in office really considered as one of his duties as President? I have a hard time buying into that idea.

I do not know. When he speaks on an issue as President from the trappings of president it gets close no marred what. It is why I disagree with the opinion from a policy standpoint.

Why introduce evidence from him in his capacity as president serving in the moment, when the prosecution is completely based on behavior prior to him being on a presidential capacity?

The lawyer quoted in the article is right about transfer pre conviction being appropriate when a fed officers conduct in that capacity is made an issue by state prosecutors; even when, the underlying crime is based on conduct not related to they official capacity.

Now, what might get lost is in that example the Fed officer was at all relevant times a Fed officer.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
You do not have a justice system

You have a CRIMINAL system!

And yet there are a few that would say the process is all that matters, regardless of outcomes

Well, if the process ain't right, the outcome is doomed to not be right either, except maybe by accident.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Well, if the process ain't right, the outcome is doomed to not be right either, except maybe by accident.

you are special .. i am certain that's not the first time you heard it -- how's the hormone treatment coming?

If the process is not correct, the presumption of innocence was never rebutted. The person is innocent. Hence, convictions are voided.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
If the process is not correct, the presumption of innocence was never rebutted. The person is innocent. Hence, convictions are voided.

yeah, an innocent has NEVER been convicted in the history of law ...i am feeling rather jerky, and while it's NOT my imaginary friend, how did "process" workout for a certain rabbi, about ce 33?

Obviously, you did not read. Big T truth is secondary to process.

Of the law is applied correctly and process given the appellate courts do not care. You can go read Justice Scalia’s opinion when he let a probably “innocent man” be executed.

Nothing you said had any relevance to what I said before.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
If the process is not correct, the presumption of innocence was never rebutted. The person is innocent. Hence, convictions are voided.

I presume that principle is taught in law school. So, the second presumption is that's correct.

I also presume in Trump's convictions the question is - was the process flawed?

I suppose we shall see.

IMO, Trump showed us another flaw in the process by escaping trial in federal court, and planting it directly in the court of public opinion, by venue and result.

It's growing weeds, BTW.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Obviously, you did not read. Big T truth is secondary to process.

Of the law is applied correctly and process given the appellate courts do not care. You can go read Justice Scalia’s opinion when he let a probably “innocent man” be executed.

Nothing you said had any relevance to what I said before.

and nothing you said was the first word about justice, it is about process -- and you certainly didn't address the "process" given to a certain rabbi - was the letter of the law and process followed? who knows, but it is heavily observed in writing .. that whole "washed his hands" part --

process is process, it isn't justice ...


odd that you didn't answer a simple question, i guess it was hidden as a statement " an innocent has NEVER been convicted in the history of law"

sample of ONE poisons the entire position .. MM says it's a 2% failure rate --- idk what lose goals YOUR vocation allows, but anything less than "three nines" 99.9% ,in mine, results in a termination and change of practice --

might consider it

quote:

sample of ONE poisons the entire position .. MM says it's a 2% failure rate --- idk what lose goals YOUR vocation allows, but anything less than "three nines" 99.9% ,in mine, results in a termination and change of practice --

might consider it

Let's apply that premise to hypocrisy, just for the irony of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

sample of ONE poisons the entire position .. MM says it's a 2% failure rate --- idk what lose goals YOUR vocation allows, but anything less than "three nines" 99.9% ,in mine, results in a termination and change of practice --

might consider it

Let's apply that premise to hypocrisy, just for the irony of it.

you aint part of the conversation, Maggie

go hide and ignore my posts, like the other thread .. or is this you putting you hypocrisy on display, for all to see?

stop sniveling, your nose is running

quote:

Ignored post by Magine Enigam posted 12.June.2025 19:21

yeah.. nothing... i wonder what feelz you get from repeatedly running away .. petulance?

Yesterday I saw an armadillo digging a hole.

I was amazed how proficient he was, slinging dirt.

But that was yesterday.