Another US first it seems. Rather puts Neil Armstrong in the shade.

Are there any legal dimensions to having a convicted felon as head of
state ? Would it cause problems with foreign travel ? Or with moving
around inside the US ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/10/2025 2:28 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Another US first it seems. Rather puts Neil Armstrong in the shade.

Are there any legal dimensions to having a convicted felon as head of
state ? Would it cause problems with foreign travel ? Or with moving
around inside the US ?

As a practical matter, it shouldn't have any effect. He will keep his
right to vote and travel throughout the US. He won't be permitted to
own a gun, but with round the clock security protection for the rest of
his life, that shouldn't be an issue. He won't be able to receive
government assistance, which with his wealth also wouldn't be an issue
for him. Some foreign countries (including Canada and the UK) do place restrictions on felons entering their countries, but they will almost
certainly make an exception for the US President. A similar exception
was made for George W. Bush who had a misdemeanor drunk driving penalty
on his record. While not a felony, it was in some ways a more serious
offense than what Trump was convicted of, which was essentially a
misdemeanor committed to coverup another misdemeanor which under NY law
was classified as a felony.

With the conviction now on the record, it also will allow him to appeal
the conviction on the grounds that it was based in part on evidence that
should have been excluded from trial. My guess is the conviction will
be overturned.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/10/2025 11:28 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Another US first it seems. Rather puts Neil Armstrong in the shade.

Are there any legal dimensions to having a convicted felon as head of
state ? Would it cause problems with foreign travel ? Or with moving
around inside the US ?

I don't think so. A felon can probably get a passport, and I doubt that
many countries are going to be difficult about a visa when POTUS wants
to visit. I don't even know if they usually insist on that formality.

A felon can usually travel freely unless the court has placed a
restriction (e.g., don't leave the state) as a condition of probation or parole, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Since the judge refrained from even making him pay a fine, he seems to
be getting off much more easily than anybody else who was convicted of a
felony of that sort. Another case of RHIP, I guess. Or WHIP (W=wealth).

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/10/2025 12:43 PM, Rick wrote:

On 1/10/2025 2:28 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Another US first it seems. Rather puts Neil Armstrong in the shade.

Are there any legal dimensions to having a convicted felon as head of
state ? Would it cause problems with foreign travel ? Or with moving
around inside the US ?

As a practical matter, it shouldn't have any effect.  He will keep his
right to vote and travel throughout the US.  He won't be permitted to
own a gun, but with round the clock security protection for the rest of
his life, that shouldn't be an issue.  He won't be able to receive government assistance, which with his wealth also wouldn't be an issue
for him.  Some foreign countries (including Canada and the UK) do place restrictions on felons entering their countries, but they will almost certainly make an exception for the US President.  A similar exception
was made for George W. Bush who had a misdemeanor drunk driving penalty
on his record.  While not a felony, it was in some ways a more serious offense than what Trump was convicted of, which was essentially a
misdemeanor committed to coverup another misdemeanor which under NY law
was classified as a felony.

With the conviction now on the record, it also will allow him to appeal
the conviction on the grounds that it was based in part on evidence that should have been excluded from trial.  My guess is the conviction will
be overturned.

By this Supreme Court? Probably.
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/11/2025 1:31 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 1/10/2025 12:43 PM, Rick wrote:

On 1/10/2025 2:28 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Another US first it seems. Rather puts Neil Armstrong in the shade.

Are there any legal dimensions to having a convicted felon as head of
state ? Would it cause problems with foreign travel ? Or with moving
around inside the US ?

As a practical matter, it shouldn't have any effect.  He will keep his
right to vote and travel throughout the US.  He won't be permitted to
own a gun, but with round the clock security protection for the rest
of his life, that shouldn't be an issue.  He won't be able to receive
government assistance, which with his wealth also wouldn't be an issue
for him.  Some foreign countries (including Canada and the UK) do
place restrictions on felons entering their countries, but they will
almost certainly make an exception for the US President.  A similar
exception was made for George W. Bush who had a misdemeanor drunk
driving penalty on his record.  While not a felony, it was in some
ways a more serious offense than what Trump was convicted of, which
was essentially a misdemeanor committed to coverup another misdemeanor
which under NY law was classified as a felony.

With the conviction now on the record, it also will allow him to
appeal the conviction on the grounds that it was based in part on
evidence that should have been excluded from trial.  My guess is the
conviction will be overturned.

By this Supreme Court? Probably.

Although it is interesting to note that the Court ruled 5-4 against
Trump's attempt to delay the sentencing. In that case, Roberts and
Barrett sided with the three liberals in allowing the sentencing to take
place. I've noted before that contrary to the 6-3 conservative-liberal
split that most people see on the court, it is becoming more of a 3-3-3
split with three hard-core liberals, three hard-core conservatives and
Roberts, Barrett and, to a lesser extent Kavanaugh, forming a sort of
moderate, slightly right leaning center that can swing either left or
right depending on the case, somewhat in the mold of Anthony Kennedy.

That all said, I still think the court will probably ultimately overturn
the conviction because of the evidence introduced that would constitute
what Roberts calls "official" duties. But it could be a 5-4 vote with
Barrett siding with the liberals.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/11/2025 1:31 AM, Barry Gold wrote:

On 1/10/2025 11:28 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:

Another US first it seems. Rather puts Neil Armstrong in the shade.

Are there any legal dimensions to having a convicted felon as head of
state ? Would it cause problems with foreign travel ? Or with moving
around inside the US ?

I don't think so. A felon can probably get a passport, and I doubt that
many countries are going to be difficult about a visa when POTUS wants
to visit. I don't even know if they usually insist on that formality.

A felon can usually travel freely unless the court has placed a
restriction (e.g., don't leave the state) as a condition of probation or parole, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Since the judge refrained from even making him pay a fine, he seems to
be getting off much more easily than anybody else who was convicted of a felony of that sort. Another case of RHIP, I guess. Or WHIP (W=wealth).

Well, you say a "felony of that sort", but this was an unusual case
where the crime was actually a misdemeanor committed with the apparent
intent to coverup another misdemeanor. Neither crime was a felony per
se, but under NY law the prosecutor was allowed to charge it as such.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The next step will be for Trump to start appealing his conviction. It
is going to cost the NYC taxpayers millions of dollars. At some point
legal experts say that there will be a flaw found in the trial and a
mistrial declared. Is NYC going to retry Trump costing more millions?

If the NY Governor had some common sense she would grant a pardon and
save all that money

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/12/2025 9:47 AM, Roy wrote:

The next step will be for Trump to start appealing his conviction.  It
is going to cost the NYC taxpayers millions of dollars.  At some point
legal experts say that there will be a flaw found in the trial and a
mistrial declared.  Is NYC going to retry Trump costing more millions?

If the NY Governor had some common sense she would grant a pardon and
save all that money

I'm pretty sure if Trump wins the appeal and the conviction is
overturned, there is no way NY will re-try him. As you say, the trial
and appeal will already have cost millions by that point, and I suspect
the net negative publicity Bragg and his team have received for a
prosecution that ultimately led to no jail time or fine or even
probation will cause everyone involved to just want to put this behind them.

As to whether Gov. Hochul would actually pardon Trump, that's an
interesting question. When asked in December about this, she didn't
just give the kneejerk "no" response she had been giving before the
election. Instead she said this (as quoted by AP):

“There is a pardoning process in the state of New York. It is
lengthy...It requires a couple of elements. One is remorse.”

She continued: “No one will be treated any better, or any worse, by me
when I make those life altering decisions as we’re looking at petitions
that are coming in throughout the year. So, no one gets extra favors, no
one gets treated worse.”

https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-criminal-conviction-ca2ec0133b7e19413dac4328617c41cf

That's not exactly a hard "no". I'm wondering if Trump puts together
some kind of statement with some flavor of regret (actual remorse would
be a heavy lift for him), is it possible Hochul might do a Gerald Ford
and issue the pardon in the name of healing and unity, not to mention
saving the state millions in legal costs, to end all the litigation and
allow the state to move on? Hard to say. She's a politician first, of
course, and her hard-core democratic constituency could refuse to
forgive her. But sometimes politicians rise to the level of statesman,
and maybe that will happen in this case. We shall see...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)