Jose Munoz: Some of the evidence used at trial came from his time in office. That's inadmissible, now. "Official acts" is pretty vague. We'll see what the judge says.

This is patently absurd. He falsified records BEFORE becoming president.

Trump Moves to Overturn Manhattan Conviction, Citing Immunity Decisionwww.nytimes.com Former President Donald J. Trump took the action hours after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling granted him immunity for official acts committed in office.

Except actions taken to cover up a crime committed before he took office are not official acts.

Evidence from his time is office could prove to be inadmissible due to the ruling. It’s not just actions.

Only if it's an official act. How is covering up a crime committed before he took office an "official act"?

Some of the evidence used at trial came from his time in office. That's inadmissible, now. "Official acts" is pretty vague. We'll see what the judge says.

It may be inadmissible NOW, but it was admissible THEN. Ex post facto goes both ways, which is why governors are pardoning marijuana convictions now that it's legal; making it legal doesn't erase previous convictions ex post facto. Making official acts protected doesn't erase previous convictions.

Post