NEW: Here is the Trump team's pre-motion letter on why, in their view, the Supreme Court's immunity decision means Judge Merchan should set aside the NY verdict (via Frank G. Runyeon, Law360) s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24...
I'm going to repost Frank Runyeon's helpful analysis of the aspects of the testimony that the Trump team is challenging:
- Hope Hicks' testimony
- Tweets
- Ethics filing
- Call records
HICKS'S TESTIMONY: ADA Steinglass called testimony by Trump's fmr White House aide Hope Hicks "devastating," defense notes.
But, per Trump, that should never have been introduced at trial, presumably because the conversation was between the president and his staffer. (via Frank G. Runyeon, Law360)
TWEETS: Defense counsel said these tweets also should never have been shown to the jury, because they were official communications to the public during his first term in the White House. (via Frank G. Runyeon, Law360)
ETHICS FILING: Trump's @OfficeGovEthics form was also an "official act" that the DA shouldn't have been able to rely on as evidence, defense argues. (via Frank G. Runyeon, Law360)
TRUE: The Supreme Court's immunity decision is unlikely to unsettle the NY verdict
TRUE: Trump's charged conduct consisted of *unofficial* acts
FALSE: Trump's charged conduct took place before his presidency (he was mostly charged for reimbursements to Michael Cohen made while he was president)
Well fuck here we go.
Also I am not gonna be able to get over the fact the law firm is literally White Law
Are we actually living inside a devastating political satire movie, or...
That there is even a colorable immunity argument for covering up conduct that happened before the election and was done through Trump's private company shows how much further the majority took the opinion than they needed to if their goal was just "delay".
And now we see why the Roberts opinion was so preoccupied with suppressing evidence and motive rather than just immunity for official acts.
Nakedly corrupt, bought and paid for.
Which is total nonsense, because Trump wasn't President when he was running for President in 2016, and paying off his bagman after the fact was the act of a private citizen and business owner, as was falsifying the records of his private business; The Office of The Presidency wasn't involved.
Prior to yesterday morning, I would have agreed with you. But with SCOTUS deciding that the law does not matter when it comes to Trump . . . who knows.
I think Merchan will try to do the right thing. Whether SCOTUS will allow that to happen is another question.
Merchan will have no problem doing the right thing.
He's a NY State judge, and has handled many previous total-nonsense Trump briefs.
We'll see if Trump finds some way to appeal this to the Federal courts, but it'd be pretty tough.
Merchan has been fair. No concern with him.
But SCOTUS basically set the Constitution on fire to save Trump. And by doing so, has given him grounds to appeal and delay and overturn, that before yesterday would have been frivolous.
Our only hope is defeating trump at the polls.
The Roberts opinion is bizarre and facially corrupt because it invents a halo around all “official” acts that demands the presumption of no mens rea in their commission.
