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.
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?