US Supreme Court declines to halt Trump’s sentencing in hush money case

[Pelican Press 0]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

US Supreme Court declines to halt Trump’s sentencing in hush money case

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by the state of Missouri to halt Donald Trump’s upcoming sentencing for his conviction in New York on felony charges involving hush money paid to a ***** star and left a related gag order until after the Nov. 5 presidential election.

The decision by the justices came in response to Missouri’s lawsuit claiming that the case against Trump infringed on the right of voters under the U.S. Constitution to hear from the *********** presidential nominee as he seeks to regain the White House.

The Supreme Court’s order was unsigned. ************* Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito indicated they would have taken up Missouri’s case but added that they “would not grant other relief.”

Trump was found guilty in May of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to ***** star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence before the 2016 U.S. election about a ******* encounter she has said she had with Trump years earlier. Prosecutors have said the payment was designed help Trump’s chances in the 2016 election, when he defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Trump, the *********** candidate in this year’s election, denies having had **** with Daniels and has vowed to appeal his conviction after his sentencing, scheduled for September.

Missouri’s *********** Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a July 3 lawsuit against New York state asking the Supreme Court to pause Trump’s impending sentencing and the gag order placed on him by New York state judge Juan Merchan.

Legal disputes between states are filed directly to the Supreme Court.

Bailey argued that the ********* case against Trump violated the right of Missouri residents under the Constitution’s First Amendment to “hear from and vote for their preferred presidential candidate.”

“Instead of letting presidential candidates campaign on their own merits, ******** progressives in New York are trying to rig the 2024 election by waging a direct ******* on our democratic process,” Bailey said in bringing the case.

*********** attorneys general from Florida, Iowa, Montana and Alaska filed a Supreme Court brief in support of Missouri’s lawsuit.

Trump also faces federal and state ********* charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

The Supreme Court in a July 1 ruling powered by its 6-3 ************* majority granted Trump substantial ********* immunity for actions taken in office. It all but ensured Trump would not face trial in the federal election subversion case before the election.

Trump’s lawyers promptly invoked the immunity ruling in a bid to toss the hush money verdict. They said prosecutors improperly relied on social media posts made in 2018 by Trump when he was serving as president that qualified as official communications.

The judge in the case said he would rule on Trump’s arguments by Sept. 6. Merchan said that if he upholds the conviction, he would sentence Trump on Sept. 18.

A New York state appeals court last week rejected Trump’s challenge to his gag order. The decision by the Appellate Division in Manhattan means Trump, who has called all the ********* cases against him politically motivated, cannot comment publicly about individual prosecutors and others in the case until his sentencing.

(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Scott Malone)

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

#Supreme #Court #declines #halt #Trumps #sentencing #hush #money #case

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up