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".
I’d bet you’re right on that, but the issue is: there are acts that, under this rule, are official because one of their descriptions can count as official, and this is so even if other, perhaps even more salient descriptions count as crimes
Sure but that's the normal way of things, right? You can't duck the charge of obstruction of justice when you destroyed evidence by saying that you prefer to think of it as helping out a friend in a jam
But literally you can now if you’re the president because the president’s motive in performing an act cannot be considered and official acts for which he is immune cannot be entered as evidence. That’s saying explicitly that the president by definition cannot use official acts to obstruct justice.
Oh for sure. It’s just that previously you could use evidence that non-criminal official acts were performed as part of a scheme to obstruct justice, and now it seems like it literally might not be possible under the law for the president acting as president to obstruct justice.
I mean, -clearly- impeachments are outside of this precedent--an impeachment is a political act and not subject to niceties like "immunity" or "laws". If Congress says it's a high crime or misdemeanor, then it is (the SC presiding over impeachment proceedings aside).
But otherwise, yes.
Except that, at the Senate removal trial, Trump’s lawyer would argue that the president has immunity for whatever he was being impeached for, and if Chief Justice Roberts (presiding over the case) said yeah, that’s how it goes, well, that’s how it goes.
Clearly, the President does not have immunity for his crimes.
Except now he does.
Absolutely no precedent or standard can be assumed to be in force anymore.
