Well that's curious....

#55

What about 'em. My meager understanding is it's some kind of citizen imitated municipal court thing.

Bottom line, unless and until, the prosecutor moves to revoke the who, what, when where, how's of whatever don't matter.

But I never saw any probation terms issued.

The Buffoon has not yet been sentenced. I think sentencing was set for September but a request to postpone, 'til after the election and not opposed by the NY prosecutor, was granted.

Pretty sure they mean bail instead.

Thanks.

I assume the bail is for this case, J6, and the "more" felonies are those described in the superseding indictment. Those charges are merely a reiteration of the original indictment where bail was granted. Thus no bail violation.

Precedent has already been established for this.

What precedent?

Trump being indicted for 4 more felonies is a violation of his probation [sic]

What probation?

Section I provides a detailed statement of the case that the Government intends to prove at trial. Begins at about the middle of page 3.

Section II sets forth the legal principles governing claims of presidential immunity. It explains that, for each category of conduct that the Supreme Court has not yet addressed, this Court should first determine whether it was official or unofficial by analyzing the relevant "content, form, and context," id. at 2340, to determine whether the defendant was acting in his official capacity or instead "in his capacity as a candidate for re-election." Begins at about the middle of page 85.

Section III then applies those legal principles to the defendant's conduct and establishes that nothing the Government intends to present to the jury is protected by presidential immunity. Begins a little down page 88.

Finally, Section IV explains the relief sought by the Government and specifies the findings the Court should make in a single order"namely, that the defendant's conduct set forth in Section I is not immunized, and that as a result, the defendant must stand trial on the superseding indictment and the Government is not prohibited at trial from using evidence of the conduct described in Section I. About the middle of page 164.

#12: Paywall

Excuse me, #62.

"Here's the thing:
VPs don't make policy. Presidents do.
Who talks about the Pence years?!?
x.com"

Not exactly extolling confidence in Walz.
#52

Nor extolling confidence in Vance's drum beat of complaints about the "Harris policies" of the last 3.5 years.

Seems there's some misapprehension about what going on. This is the necessary result of the asinine SC immunity decision. The decision requires the trial court consider extensive detailed evidence about the Buffoon and associates conduct to determine what is and what is not immune conduct. Short of live witnesses the next best evidence is transcripts and investigative notes. Since court proceedings are public such filings are public subject to some redactions for privacy and security reasons.

It has nothing, again nothing, to do with trial in the media or providing an advantage. It's about how the SC requires immunity to be evaluated.

For what it's worth, I generally agree with the SC's bottom line conclusions about immunity but the procedural mechanism it created is asinine. The trial and appellate court's had already generally adhered to the bottom line conclusions using normal motion practice. The Court should have simply declined the interlocutory appeal and dealt with it in the the normal course after judgement, if necessary.

#6

On that alone, questionable.

What he apparently put on paper, devastating.