i wonder if they're bringing up stuff he did in the white house so now they can try to get the case halted and tossed on the "official act' immunity the gang of six just made up yesterday
Their argument is that the prosecution partially relied on things he did while president as evidence, and that might now be inadmissible due to Trump v. U.S.
But it’s also a clear sign that no matter how Roberts might have pretended to thread a needle, Trump and his administration see this as absolute immunity for anything they do, in office or not.
Roberts: “it’s absurd speak of a hypothetical future where a president would abuse official duties.”
Trump, 10hrs later: “it was my official duty as president to commit fraud in order to pay a porn star to not speak.”
Trump, 10hrs later: “it was my official duty as an unelected nominee to potentially become president to commit fraud in order to pay a porn star to not speak.”
I’m sure the appellate judges in New York will agree. What happens when this goes federal is anyone’s guess. Had the majority gone with Barrett’s opinion instead, I’d feel better. That they didn’t says something dark.
If she wasn’t going to join the dissent, Barrett really should have called more attention to the majority’s bullshit by making this a 5-3-1 opinion instead of joining the majority in part.
Yes, I too am shocked that the firebreathing conservative appointed by the convicted felon didn't make a stand against firebreathing conservatives and the convicted felon.
I’d have to go back and look at what evidence they’re trying to exclude. Roberts said official communications are conversations with other executive branch officials, not campaign staff or personal lawyers. Who was he talking to in the hush money case?
Right, the court said that communication between Trump and another executive branch official constituted an official act, and it could not be used as evidence in a prosecution *even for an unofficial act.*
