No. of Recommendations: 4
Trump is still due in NY state court on Tuesday for the next steps in his felony conviction there. Merchan is going to rule on the application of the USSC law-makaing*** regarding presidential immunity. Since virtually everything related to the case happened before Trump took office in 2016, there is little application. However, there was one conversation between Hicks and Trump that did happen in the White House and is arguably immune.
While that may have been what tipped off the illegal scheme, and it was introduced in court (**before** the USSC ruling, so no error at the time), there is so much other evidence that is acceptable under the new USSC law that I expect the judge to rule that it doesn't affect the outcome.
Although the next step should be sentencing later this month, the inevitable appeal of this ruling by Trump will delay that. I expect Trump will not only appeal, but he will ask the appellate court to delay everything until after he leaves office. And I do mean everything - they won't even make an argument for an error in the ruling. The claim will be that as President-elect he is already shielded from prosecution by the office. It will be nothing more than further delay based on his election.
That much I'm reasonably sure of. What happens after that is a bit murkier.
Will the appeals court buy that argument? I don't know. There's certainly no love lost between Trump and the New York state courts. So I don't expect them to simply rubber stamp his request. But will they find it persuasive? I don't think they should. So what if they don't find it persuasive? What if they remind him that he's not President yet and does not yet get deference that the office affords? Will they give him time to actually argue his appeal? Will they deny it outright for lack of argument?
I suppose that means things don't actually get interesting on Tuesday. The really interesting stuff won't happen for a week or two.
--Peter
***Yes, I am going to derisively use "law making" and "law" here, as that is what the court has done - make law, not interpret it.
