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)
One thing I'm genuinely unclear on is how NY state appellate courts will treat SCOTUS' discussion about the admissibility of "official acts" evidence in a criminal prosecution. That particular section of the decision wasn't grounded in a Constitutional principle applicable to states, and New York...
I think Trump has the further hurdle in New York that he waited until well after the deadline for pretrial motions to raise this argument (even though he had done so already in other cases), and the trial court denied it because it was untimely.
I disagree on the first point because it depends on treating SCOTUS as fair minded arbiters of law. His political allies in the federal judiciary will act under color of law to keep him free and immune from consequence so long as he remains in good political standing.
Tweets are public, so how can those be withheld? Signing a personal check for a personal lawyer even while sitting at the Resolute Desk is a personal act. Can we argue using a personal phone making personal calls is not an official duty? Let Russia & China listen but not Americans?
I had been under the impression that at least some counts covered conduct entirely before the inauguration, but apparently that's not the case. In fact it appears the earliest charged act took place on Feb 14, 2017.
SCOTUS can make pull the idea of Presidential immunity out of thin air and somehow you want to try to use logic to convince us that he can not possibly win with this motion? Color me skeptical.
