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.
Assuming that happens, and I suppose it could, do they retry it all over again without the evidence in question? Other than the actual checks, that was before he was in office. I can't imagine all the pre-election colludy stuff being considered "official".
again NAL but I believe so, yes -- anything he did before he was Pres is definitionally not an "official act" of the Presidency
unfortunately they would not only be missing some evidence, they'd then be facing a defense that knows exactly what their strategy and arguments were
True. But he was found guilty on all counts in 15 minutes (ok 2 days). Any sane defense lawyer would try to drop the check counts related and plead out the others.
But sanity went bye-bye long ago and obviously this is about getting to say the conviction was tossed before the election. (also NAL)
They'll say *every* count relied on excluded evidence. It's basically the same crime 37 times, so I don't see how you can separate out anything. Either there's enough evidence to convict anyway, or not. And Trump will never take a plea. Why would he? He gets everything he wants, all the time.
