Merchan, on Tuesday, partially lifted the gag order because the trial has concluded.

Trump is now able to speak about protected witnesses and jurors.

Trump still is blocked from commenting about individual prosecutors, court staff, and their family members. That portion of the gag order will remain in effect until Trump's sentencing on July 11.

Merchant doesn't want his daughter's name mentioned in the debate with 20 million people watching

WATCH: CNN’s @eliehonig on how the Supreme Court’s latest presidential immunity ruling changes the legal landscape when it comes to President Trump’s legal cases:

“This completely reshuffles the deck with respect to all FOUR of the pending criminal cases.” pic.twitter.com/V0hCyHfDgt

— Conservative War Machine (@WarMachineRR) July 1, 2024

Is Honig's theory plausible to have Trump's conviction dismissed? Should it at least, in theory, require an evidentiary hearing? Or can Merchan basically say to just bring it up appeal?

In my view that would be kind of a stretch to get to the hush money case as that brings Cohen in as Trump's counsel but not WH counsel, Trump's personal counsel. So unofficial acts dealing with Cohen.

aggiehawg said:

---

In my view that would be kind of a stretch to get to the hush money case as that brings Cohen in as Trump's counsel but not WH counsel, Trump's personal counsel. So unofficial acts dealing with Cohen.

---

But Honig was speaking in reference to conversations that Hope Hicks had with Trump while they were in the Oval Office that were ruled admissible?

I may have misunderstood, but I thought the SCOTUS ruling said something like conversations POTUS has with Oval Office staff cannot be used in relation to criminal charges dealing with unofficial acts? Or was that only in relation to official acts?

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In my view that would be kind of a stretch to get to the hush money case as that brings Cohen in as Trump's counsel but not WH counsel, Trump's personal counsel. So unofficial acts dealing with Cohen.

---

But Honig was speaking in reference to conversations that Hope Hicks had with Trump while they were in the Oval Office that were ruled admissible?

I may have misunderstood, but I thought the SCOTUS ruling said something like conversations POTUS has with Oval Office staff cannot be used in relation to criminal charges dealing with unofficial acts? Or was that only in relation to official acts?

---

My understanding is official acts.

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In my view that would be kind of a stretch to get to the hush money case as that brings Cohen in as Trump's counsel but not WH counsel, Trump's personal counsel. So unofficial acts dealing with Cohen.

---

But Honig was speaking in reference to conversations that Hope Hicks had with Trump while they were in the Oval Office that were ruled admissible?

I may have misunderstood, but I thought the SCOTUS ruling said something like conversations POTUS has with Oval Office staff cannot be used in relation to criminal charges dealing with unofficial acts? Or was that only in relation to official acts?

---

My understanding is official acts.

---

Ah okay. If it's official acts, then Honig would be incorrect.

I wouldn't put much into any hot takes on either side of the legal aisle on today's opinion that were issued within minutes of the opinion, especially those trying to apply it to any other case.

The opinion throws the word "presumptive immunity" around a lot and talks and has discussion of how to "rebut" the presumption, and talks about "core" powers vs non-core powers, etc., etc.

For example, buried on page 27 is this throwing mud into the water and which I doubt Honig had read yet alone he certainly would not have digested it:

Quote:

---

There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity, perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of "content, form, and context" will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But "there is not always a clear line between [the President's] personal and official affairs." Mazars, 591 U. S., at 868. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I wouldn't put much into any hot takes on either side of the legal aisle on today's opinion that were issued within minutes of the opinion, especially those trying to apply it to any other case.

The opinion throws the word "presumptive immunity" around a lot and talks and has discussion of how to "rebut" the presumption, and talks about "core" powers vs non-core powers, etc., etc.

For example, buried on page 27 is this throwing mud into the water and which I doubt Honig had read yet alone he certainly would not have digested it:

Quote:

---

There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity, perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of "content, form, and context" will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But "there is not always a clear line between [the President's] personal and official affairs." Mazars, 591 U. S., at 868. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging.

---

---

Ambiguity can be advantageous.

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In my view that would be kind of a stretch to get to the hush money case as that brings Cohen in as Trump's counsel but not WH counsel, Trump's personal counsel. So unofficial acts dealing with Cohen.

---

But Honig was speaking in reference to conversations that Hope Hicks had with Trump while they were in the Oval Office that were ruled admissible?

I may have misunderstood, but I thought the SCOTUS ruling said something like conversations POTUS has with Oval Office staff cannot be used in relation to criminal charges dealing with unofficial acts? Or was that only in relation to official acts?

---

He was charged for personal payments to his personal attorney. Seems very much unofficial acts. The only comparison is he would have immunity from prosecution for discussions with Hope Hicks.

If I say that, there's a 0.0000000000% chance that Merchan even entertains an argument about presidential immunity.

aggiejayrod said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

In my view that would be kind of a stretch to get to the hush money case as that brings Cohen in as Trump's counsel but not WH counsel, Trump's personal counsel. So unofficial acts dealing with Cohen.

---

But Honig was speaking in reference to conversations that Hope Hicks had with Trump while they were in the Oval Office that were ruled admissible?

I may have misunderstood, but I thought the SCOTUS ruling said something like conversations POTUS has with Oval Office staff cannot be used in relation to criminal charges dealing with unofficial acts? Or was that only in relation to official acts?

---

He was charged for personal payments to his personal attorney. Seems very much unofficial acts. The only comparison is he would have immunity from prosecution for discussions with Hope Hicks.

If I say that, there's a 0.0000000000% chance that Merchan even entertains an argument about presidential immunity.

---

But, as the SCOTUS decision said, bringing in testimony that has immunity can't be done...

So, since it WAS done...is there any recourse?

From the BMX thread:

Quote:

---

If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the "intended effect" of immunity would be defeated. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. The President's immune conduct would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of generally applicable criminal laws. Use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the President's official decision making will be distorted. See Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, n. 19.

---

Not something I saw in my first read. It then really needs a deeper dive because Hope was part of his campaign before joining the White House staff. A lot of what she testified to was campaign stuff which will be unofficial acts. But prosecutors did go into depth on his official calendar which seems to be a no no for criminal prosecution.

aggiejayrod said:

---

Not something I saw in my first read. It then really needs a deeper dive because Hope was part of his campaign before joining the White House staff. A lot of what she testified to was campaign stuff which will be unofficial acts. But prosecutors did go into depth on his official calendar which seems to be a no no for criminal prosecution.

---

But, would ANY of her testimony be admissible? Her talks with Trump may have all be immunity-protected. So, just getting into them and finding parts that might not be unofficial acts could be viewed as a step too far in broaching the immunity no go line...

Hypothetical to maybe make my point clearer. Say I decide to run for president in 2028 and the machines glitch to the point I win. I name you my chief of staff cuz Mr Jameson and Mr Daniels told me that was a great idea. Would your and I's discussions on Texags the last…however long we've talked…be covered under my future presidential immunity?

aggiejayrod said:

---

Hypothetical to maybe make my point clearer. Say I decide to run for president in 2028 and the machines glitch to the point I win. I name you my chief of staff cuz Mr Jameson and Mr Daniels told me that was a great idea. Would your and I's discussions on Texags the last…however long we've talked…be covered under my future presidential immunity?

---

Under the guidelines today, they appear to fall under the presumption of immunity.

Someone would have to PROVE they weren't official acts...

BREAKING: Former President Trump moves to overturn Manhattan conviction, citing immunity decision by SCOTUS.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 2, 2024

drcrinum said:

---

Huge 👇 https://t.co/PMhLyiWDqM

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) June 21, 2024

Hello Judge Merchan.

---

Funny how Team Trump was able to get a motion on file with regard to SCOTUS immunity case the same day it was authored but have still filed nothing regarding this "huge" case that internet lawyers claimed was right on point!

Alvin Bragg told Judge Juan Merchan today that he does not oppose Trump's request to delay his sentencing scheduled for next week.

DA Bragg has now announced he has no objections to delaying Trump's sentencing next week.

I have questions:

First, has Merchan filed a final order of judgment on the jury verdict? Or was he waiting until the day schduled for sentencing?

Second, if he hasn't filed one, does he now have to hold a hearing in light of some of the evidence he allowed as not being admissible under Trump v. U.S. before rescheduling sentencing? Will he hold such a hearing or merely ask for briefs?

Third: In the absence of the final order of judgment, can Trump even appeal the whole case? Does NY have a law that allows that?

Quote:

---

The decision on Monday prompted a speedy motion by lead defense attorney Todd Blanche to push a sentencing hearing later into the summer while Judge Juan Merchan considers their motion to overturn the conviction on 34 felony counts. With both sides in agreement, it appears likely a delay will occur, the New York Times reported.

In response to a letter from Trump's lawyers, the district attorney's office wrote that the defense had filed a motion worthy of consideration by Merchan. "Although we believe defendant's arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion," wrote Joshua Steinglass, one of the assistant district attorneys who tried the case against the former president. Trump's lawyers have indicated they plan to file their court papers on July 10th, one day before the scheduled sentencing, and prosecutors said they would respond two weeks later, the outlet reported.

---

Quote:

---

Blanche and his team have argued that prosecutors introduced evidence in the trial that would be precluded under the Supreme Court's recent ruling, according to The Hill, setting up a potential reevaluation of the entire trial.

---

LINK

They must be concerned that the conviction will get tossed before the election.

Rather keep him a convicted, unsentenced felon than have the case overturned on appeal.

aggiehawg said:

---

DA Bragg has now announced he has no objections to delaying Trump's sentencing next week.

I have questions:

First, has Merchan filed a final order of judgment on the jury verdict? Or was he waiting until the day schduled for sentencing?

Second, if he hasn't filed one, does he now have to hold a hearing in light of some of the evidence he allowed as not being admissible under Trump v. U.S. before rescheduling sentencing? Will he hold such a hearing or merely ask for briefs?

Third: In the absence of the final order of judgment, can Trump even appeal the whole case? Does NY have a law that allows that?

---

If I am not mistaken, the final order has not been entered. I remember after the jury verdict that Twitter was saying he wasn't convicted yet because the judge had not entered the final judgement and Biden et al were saying something that technically wasn't true.

But... I am getting older and my memory is not as sharp as it used to be.

Quote:

---

If I am not mistaken, the final order has not been entered. I remember after the jury verdict that Twitter was saying he wasn't convicted yet because the judge had not entered the final judgement and Biden et al were saying something that technically wasn't true.

But... I am getting older and my memory is not as sharp as it used to be.

---

I remember that too which is why I asked. It is standard appellate procedure to require an order of the trial court judge upon which to base an appeal. Interlocutory appeals still require an order and under some rules permission of the court to file such an appeal.

Trump files pre-motion letter for Justice Merchan to toss out the verdict based on yesterday's immunity decision.

Though they believe Trump's motion is without merit, the DA's office does not oppose the request and resulting delay of the July 11 sentencing. pic.twitter.com/f6LgatrBZO

— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) July 2, 2024

Quote:

---

1000% -- the grounds laid out in the letter are four-square as set forth in yesterday's decision.

All of the commentary by Trump once he was in office needed to be parsed as First Amendment material within the scope of his official duties, and all the testimony about meetings following his taking office are subject to the presumptive immunity doctrine laid down the court and required pretrial resolution prior to the evidence being allowed in.

I do not believe there is any basis for an argument of "harmless error" under these circumstances.

More to follow as time permits today.

---

1000% -- the grounds laid out in the letter are four-square as set forth in yesterday's decision.

All of the commentary by Trump once he was in office needed to be parsed as First Amendment material within the scope of his official duties, and all the testimony about meetings… https://t.co/BZWLMxxPH6

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 2, 2024

Here's the letter pic.twitter.com/RF6IhNd6x2

— Dee (@d33ness72) July 2, 2024

BREAKING: President Trump just received his sentencing from Alvin Bragg.

Here’s what he got: 4 years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

pic.twitter.com/ivjuoubJE0

— Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) July 2, 2024

will25u said:

---

Trump files pre-motion letter for Justice Merchan to toss out the verdict based on yesterday's immunity decision.

Though they believe Trump's motion is without merit, the DA's office does not oppose the request and resulting delay of the July 11 sentencing. pic.twitter.com/f6LgatrBZO

— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) July 2, 2024

Quote:

---

1000% -- the grounds laid out in the letter are four-square as set forth in yesterday's decision.

All of the commentary by Trump once he was in office needed to be parsed as First Amendment material within the scope of his official duties, and all the testimony about meetings following his taking office are subject to the presumptive immunity doctrine laid down the court and required pretrial resolution prior to the evidence being allowed in.

I do not believe there is any basis for an argument of "harmless error" under these circumstances.

More to follow as time permits today.

---

1000% -- the grounds laid out in the letter are four-square as set forth in yesterday's decision.

All of the commentary by Trump once he was in office needed to be parsed as First Amendment material within the scope of his official duties, and all the testimony about meetings… https://t.co/BZWLMxxPH6

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) July 2, 2024

---

Can somebody smarter than me translate the shipwreckedcrew tweet? Specifically the last statement.

I probably fall somewhere just left of the avg between JBP and kamala on the IQ scale.

This one?

Quote:

---

I do not believe there is any basis for an argument of "harmless error" under these circumstances.

---

This one?

Quote:

---

I do not believe there is any basis for an argument of "harmless error" under these circumstances.

---

In an appeal, there must be harm, otherwise the appeal won't matter.

He is saying NY can't claim letting in all that evidence was harmless, as it was the basis for the conviction!

Im Gipper said:

---

This one?

Quote:

---

I do not believe there is any basis for an argument of "harmless error" under these circumstances.

---

In an appeal, there must be harm, otherwise the appeal won't matter.

He is saying NY can't claim letting in all that evidence was harmless, as it was the basis for the conviction!

---

Thanks

Im Gipper said:

---

This one?

Quote:

---

I do not believe there is any basis for an argument of "harmless error" under these circumstances.

---

In an appeal, there must be harm, otherwise the appeal won't matter.

He is saying NY can't claim letting in all that evidence was harmless, as it was the basis for the conviction!

---

In other words, could you say that impermissible evidence of this nature immediately falls under reversible error and subject to automatic mistrial?

Im Gipper said:

---

This one?

Quote:

---

I do not believe there is any basis for an argument of "harmless error" under these circumstances.

---

In an appeal, there must be harm, otherwise the appeal won't matter.

He is saying NY can't claim letting in all that evidence was harmless, as it was the basis for the conviction!

---

But without a Special Verdict form, do we really know that? We have zero clue what the jury's reasoning was since Merchan gave them a Sunday Brunch Buffet menu on what was the predicate crime.

As to that last point, the SCOTUS decision on unanimity required on verdicts has more sway on the way Merchan screwed up the jury instructions and verdict form.

🚨BREAKING: Judge Merchan has delayed President Trump’s sentencing in the Manhattan "hush money" case to September 18, 2024. pic.twitter.com/NKXtGRh2fs

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) July 2, 2024

will25u said:

---

🚨BREAKING: Judge Merchan has delayed President Trump’s sentencing in the Manhattan "hush money" case to September 18, 2024. pic.twitter.com/NKXtGRh2fs

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) July 2, 2024

---

Convenient date for a "September" surprise? Based on how SCOTUS wrote the opinion, I'm guessing Trump can appeal any decisions made on immunity here?

If so, would he appeal in federal court?

Edit: would the verbiage in Merchan's order "…if such is still necessary…" be saying the possibility of the verdict being overturned?

I know I've seen enough I'm going to put a marker down!! Merchan doesn't get reversed after all because he'll declare a mistrial. "Oops, my bad" & they'll all do their best to blame it on the rogue Supreme Court, and using a term our great Aggiehawg loves to use, memory hole the rest.