they def is arguing that some of the evidence from the trial was inadmissible. Because SCOTUS didn't just rule that he can't face charges for official conduct - you can't even use "official conduct" as evidence in any type of prosecution. So they're trying to have the verdict thrown out.
Still trying to follow this. If I understand it, a guy murders someone before getting elected president and then orders subordinates to, say, bone saw the body to pieces during an Oval Office meeting. The said bone sawing is NOT admissible as evidence in a murder trial? Really missing democracy.
That is correct, because giving orders to his WH aides is an "official act".
A NY congressman is introducing a Constitutional Amendment to make it clear the Pres can't just commit all the crimes he wants, and it won't pass, but it's worth trying
