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)
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.
I think it's been demonstrated he doesn't need a strong argument, or any argument. Simply keep appealing until he gets the result he wants.
We need to stop pretending there's any meaningful rule of law at this point. The SC has proven that beyond reasonable argument.
Virtually all of the criminal conduct took place in the White House, and plenty of the evidence consisted of his tweets and public statements while President. This will create a "presumption of immunity" so long as he remains in good political standing.
But I don't think the legal arguments matter.
