Prediction: Trump will argue that his NY conviction must be overturned because the court admitted evidence of conversations he had with his staff while President in order to prove knowledge and intent. He will argue those conversations were “official acts.” Judge Merchan and higher NY courts …./1
/2 ….will reject the argument based on finding that those conversations were not official acts and that including it was harmless error.
Trump will appeal from NY’s highest court to SCOTUS.
I’m really quite confused on the exclusionary rule re: conversations as evidence establishing official acts/presumptively immune/unofficial acts vs conversations as official acts.
My question is: If the state court rules that the charged conduct was an unofficial act based only on the public record (e.g. evidence before he took office), does the exclusionary rule still apply re: the conversations etc after he took office? What immunity remains?
Not only can’t official acts be the basis for a charge, they can’t be offered as EVIDENCE about another act. Say Trump asks DoJ to shoot an actor he hates. They say no. He leaves office and hires a private hit man to kill the actor. The official act of asking DoJ can’t be introduced as evidence.
Speaking to DoJ to give instructions on criminal investigations or threatening to fire: definitely a core official act. Talking to a staffer: with this court, I suspect they will find a way to make it an official act.
Speaking as a semanticist, it's wild to me that they are phrasing it in terms of whether an *act* is characterized as "official", when what they seem to actually be talking about is whether there exists a *description* of the act that can be characterized as "official".
The ambiguity is the point. There’s guaranteed to be an issue for appeal, both pre- AND post-trial, thus ensuring that the real rule is “a president is immune from suit so long as they’re a president we like”
It’s inimical to the rule of law and makes a mockery of the entire profession
