What will T's stance be in appellate courts re: overturning conviction for non-immunity reasons? Would he try to argue that the entire case should be dismissed because just having argue a merits-based appeal (for reasons such as evidentiary errors) is burdensome for a sitting president?
I assume he would argue that a president-elect has immunity from being sentenced for a state court conviction even if the conviction was based entirely on private/unofficial acts.
Lets say T's efforts to get a stay/injunction on sentencing are unsuccessful, T gets discharge sentence, becomes T47. When he is doing he standard appeal of the conviction, what would his position be? Besides his arguments of, for e.g., federal preemption, evidence improperly entered, etc.,
would T take the position that the case should just be dismissed since he is now president, and the very act of appealing the conviction is burdensome to the presidency?
If can't get stay of sentencing based on president-elect/Supremacy Clause argument, any too burdensome to appeal (conviction & sentence) argument is DOA. He doesn't have to appeal if he doesn't want to. And any appeal wouldn't require any time/effort by Trump.