Someone help me understand why “official acts are inadmissible, and also whether something is an official act may require a searching case-by-case inquiry” doesn’t seriously jeopardize the proceedings in New York State
The ruling is ostensibly under the US constitution, so it shouldn’t matter whether it’s a state-court proceeding
Whatever Merchan does there seems to be fertile ground for a stay & appeals, and/or a remand for a new trial on basis of clear error in admitting “official acts” privileged evidence
What is the connection between reimbursing your personal attorney for illegal expenditures and the powers of the presidency? That none of the NY conspirators are government officials should be decisive, I think, but the court will still have to resolve the argument.
My concern isn’t so much that the convictions will be vacated but that the question of whether any official act was admitted into evidence is enough to stay punishment past November
As KBJ said, Roberts’ decision leaves a lot of unanswered questions
A not insignificant amount of NY testimony was from WH staff. Cohen testified that Trump was planning to stiff Daniels if they lost the election, which makes it look connected to the presidency
bsky.app/profile/saba...
My concern isn’t so much that the convictions will be vacated but that the question of whether any official act was admitted into evidence is enough to stay punishment past November
