Breaking news: Donald Trump’s July 11 sentencing in his criminal hush money case will likely be postponed in light of the Supreme Court immunity ruling. Manhattan prosecutors said they would not oppose a delay Tuesday, following a request from Trump's lawyers.
It hasn’t sunk in yet that Donald Trump committed these 34 felonies *during his presidency*
One of these was the same day Trump ordered the MOAB strike on Afghanistan
One was the same day Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI
pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTr...
Their argument isn't the crimes are unprosecutable official acts, they're arguing the jury saw inadmissible official-acts evidence, and their goal is just to drag this out past November
bsky.app/profile/saba...
The problem wouldn’t be that Trump’s convictions are vacated, it’s that there’s enough of an open question that he isn’t sentenced, or his sentence is stayed pending appeals to inquire about
• were any official acts admitted into evidence?
• if so, what’s the remedy?
right. The claim is that some evidence introduced at trial is disallowed by the SCOTUS ruling, so the jury was tainted and thus the verdict should be overturned.
bsky.app/profile/prot...
This is it!
This is how the corrupt SCOTUS majority plans to set aside Trump’s NY State conviction.
As @kenwhite.bsky.social said today, Roberts’ decision precludes the introduction of official acts as evidence.
So appellate courts will find the NY hush money case was defective and overturn it.
totally ridiculous, and an effect of an authoritarian Court that plans to rule the nation as a theocratic oligarchy via the courts. We have to reform the courts, and run on that in Nov
Unfortunately, some testimony was connected to his sorta official duties and needs to be examined under this absurd ruling. I don't think it will change matters as Trump waived or withdrew the argument of presidential immunity rights during this case. It just needs to be briefed so it sticks. IMO
I suspect he’ll argue that some of the testimony came from his time in the WH and thus couldn’t be used given the truly unhinged Roberts opinion. (The evidence component was the one part on which even Amy Coney Barrett could not get on board, hence her concurrence).
This is a perfect demonstration of the utter lawlessness of the Roberts opinion (both the reasoning of the opinion itself and the conduct that it rewards and encourages).
