Natanael, Tech janitor: Somebody needs to argue that due to the oath no corrupt actions can be considered official acts of the presidency because the constitution makes it clear they are expected to act in favor of the nation, not themselves. If that could stick then it would neuter the SCOTUS ruling

NEW: Judge Merchan postpones Trump's sentencing till September (via Frank G. Runyeon, Law360)

Serious question: Why? State charge. No possibility of immunity, right?

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.

In theory, that restriction shouldn't apply to NY. *stresses in theory*

I think the SCOTUS ruling covers prosecutions of all types. "Official conduct" cannot be used as evidence in a criminal trial. His immunity for official acts is "absolute". But IANAL

Somebody needs to argue that due to the oath no corrupt actions can be considered official acts of the presidency because the constitution makes it clear they are expected to act in favor of the nation, not themselves. If that could stick then it would neuter the SCOTUS ruling

Obviously that still leaves a lot of leeway because there's a lot of ways to make something look like an accidental error as part of legit presidential official acts, but it's worth a try

Post