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.
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
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
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.
SCOTUS wrote the decision to specifically provide this out for Trump.
They didn’t define official vs unofficial, so now all of the courts have determine it, which allows all of the existing cases to grind to a halt.
They knew what they were doing.
