(Photo
by
Yuki
Iwamura-Pool/Getty
Images)
On
Friday,
Justice
Juan
Merchan
rejected
Donald
Trump’s
demand
to
delay
his
sentencing
in
the
false
business
records
case.
In
the
order,
the
judge
excoriated
Trump’s
counsel,
Todd
Blanche
and
Emil
Bove
for
“language,
indeed
rhetoric,
that
has
no
place
in
legal
pleadings.”
Noting
their
inflammatory
characterization
of
the
court’s
rulings
as
lawless
and
unconstitutional,
Justice
Merchan
invoked
Chief
Justice
Roberts’
end
of
year
screed
against
judicial
“intimidation.”
“Dangerous
rhetoric
is
not
a
welcome
form
of
argument
and
will
have
no
impact
on
how
the
Court
renders
this
or
any
other
Decision,”
Justice
Merchan
wrote.
This
morning,
Blanche
and
Bove,
who
are
soon
to
be
leading
the
Justice
Department,
threw
up
two
middle
fingers
to
the
court
again,
describing
“grave
constitutional
problems
with
this
proceeding
raised
in
our
prior
pleadings,
including
forcing
a
jury
on
the
Defendant
in
record
time
and
without
proper
process.”
Screeching
about
a
“politically-motivated
prosecution
that
was
flawed
from
the
very
beginning,
centered
around
the
wrongful
actions
and
false
claims
of
a
disgraced,
disbarred
serial
liar
former
attorney,
violated
President
Trump’s
due
process
rights,
and
had
no
merit,”
they
added
that
“While
it
is
indisputable
that
the
fabricated
charges
in
this
meritless
case
should
have
never
been
brought,
and
at
this
point
could
not
possibly
justify
a
sentence
more
onerous
than
that,
no
sentence
at
all
is
appropriate
based
on
numerous
legal
errors—including
legal
errors
directly
relating
to
Presidential
immunity
that
President
Trump
will
address
in
the
forthcoming
appeals.”
So
much
for
decorum.
In
today’s
nastygram,
Blanche
and
Bove
demand
that
the
court
stay
all
proceedings
under
Trump
v.
US
to
allow
their
client
to
take
an
immediate
appeal.
As
per
usual,
the
pleading
is
a
bit
muddy
on
the
facts
and
the
law.
In
fact,
this
is
not
a
response
to
last
week’s
ruling,
in
which
the
court
refused
to
adjourn
sentencing
based
on
retroactive
presidential
immunity
that
extends
backward
into
the
presidential
transition
period
—
or
at
least,
not
really.
Trump
does
demand
an
automatic
stay
to
litigate
the
claim
of
“absolute
sitting-President
immunity
from
criminal
process,
extended
to
the
President-elect.”
But
his
main
claim
is
that
he’s
entitled
to
a
post-trial
stay
to
appeal
Justice
Merchan’s
December
refusal
to
vacate
the
conviction
because
it
rested
on
evidence
of
official
presidential
acts,
which
should
have
been
excluded.
Blanche
and
Bove
go
to
great
lengths
to
fudge
the
line
between
being
charged
for
official
conduct
and
being
convicted
of
non-official
conduct
based
on
evidence
of
official
acts.
Justice
Merchan
ruled
that
those
claims
were:
untimely,
because
raised
too
late;
incorrect,
because
the
presumption
of
immunity
was
overcome;
and
irrelevant
because
the
evidence
of
Trump’s
guilt
was
overwhelming
and
so
inclusion
was
harmless
error.
In
essence,
Trump
isn’t
making
an
immunity
claim,
he’s
making
an
evidentiary
one.
This
may
be
a
distinction
without
a
difference
—
the
law
is
whatever
the
Supreme
Court
says
it
is,
and
these
days
that’s
a
moving
target.
Moreover,
the
purpose
of
a
pretrial
stay
to
litigate
immunity
is
to
spare
officials
from
the
burdens
of
trial
—
which
is
wholly
irrelevant
at
this
juncture.
But
Blanche
and
Bove
bluster
their
way
through
it,
huffing
that
“undergoing
a
criminal
sentencing
is
the
most
extreme
example
of
‘hav[ing]
to
answer
for
his
conduct
in
court,’
—
exactly
what
the
doctrine
of
Presidential
immunity
forbids
and
why
an
automatic
stay
is
mandated.”
A
cynical
person
might
suggest
that
Trump’s
lawyers
had
gamed
the
system
by
not
appealing
the
immunity
ruling
in
December
when
it
was
issued,
instead
waiting
until
the
last
possible
second
to
seek
review
in
hopes
of
running
out
the
clock.
That
person
might
also
note
the
inherent
tension
between
the
claims
that
it
violates
presidential
immunity
to
force
Trump
to
litigate
criminal
appeals
after
he’s
sworn
in,
and
the
demand
that
sentencing
be
stayed
to
allow
him
to
litigate
his
criminal
appeals.
Trump
demanded
a
response
from
the
court
by
2pm,
warning
that
he’ll
“file
an
Article
78
proceeding
as
well
as
a
direct
appeal
in
the
Appellate
Division,
First
Department,
seeking
review
of
the
Court’s
two
recent
incorrect
rulings
on
Presidential
immunity”
if
he
doesn’t
get
his
way.
As
of
this
writing,
neither
Justice
Merchan’s
response
nor
any
appeal
has
hit
the
public
docket.
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.