Staff Reports
trial motion put forth by Donald Trump’s legal team in the Manhattan criminal case. Although initially expected to rule on the motion that could potentially set aside the verdict due to presidential immunity, he opted to delay the decision—yet again. This delay was initially assumed to be a significant hold-up, reminiscent of the endless dragging out of legal proceedings when it comes to politically charged cases involving Trump. However, it turns out Merchan merely activated an automated scheduling alert that hinted at postponements rather than any real decision-making.
Eager to keep up the legal onslaught, Bronx District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office quickly filed their own letter, requesting the court to formally pause the case to allow for additional motions from Trump’s defense. This kind of maneuver might raise eyebrows given today’s supposed “justice system,” but it’s par for the course in the ongoing saga where legal tactics often scream politics rather than principles. Trump’s team argued their position, citing the unique circumstances of his recent reelection and impending inauguration, making clear that there is more at stake here than just legal mumbo jumbo.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING : Prosecutors request stay in Trump NY case until 2029 as defense plans motion for dismissal 'once and for all.
Alina Habba: DA Bragg's case as 'effectively over'.. pic.twitter.com/12hQAwNPvY
— Ian Hansen News 🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@IanHansenNews) November 19, 2024
On the heels of Bragg’s request, Trump’s legal eagles sprang into action, filing their letter to the court invoking crucial points of law including the Constitution and the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. They asserted that the charges against Trump should be dismissed to honor the democratic mandate given to him by voters in the 2024 election. Unfortunately for progressives, it seems clear that this isn’t just your run-of-the-mill legal battle; it’s a fight over the very essence of political power and authority in the highest office of the land.
The Trump legal team’s argument is as pointed as it is significant, with implications that any continuation of the case could ultimately “hamstring” government operations here and abroad. The suggestion is that pressing forward with such a dubious case against a sitting president would not just be a nuisance but could throw the entire governmental apparatus into chaos. If only those at the District Attorney’s office could grasp that sometimes their legal games jeopardize national stability—much to the delight of those watching who see this as a blatant misuse of power.
In their letter, Trump’s attorneys requested until December 20, 2024, to prepare a formal motion to dismiss, asserting their need to respond to positions taken by the Department of Justice in related federal cases. As if to underline the absurdity of this whole affair, the clock is ticking—not just toward Trump’s potential vindication but toward an election process that clearly leaves DANY and his ilk on shaky legal ground. If one thing is clear, it is that the electorate’s voice has been heard, and it will be tough for the prosecution to ignore the relentless expression of voter intent for much longer. As the legal chess game progresses, eyes will remain peeled for Merchan’s next move and the resulting fallout of this politically charged case.
