Donald J. Trump’s lawyers want to argue that a Supreme Court decision giving presidents immunity for official acts should void his felony conviction for covering up hush money paid to a porn star.
Lots of people in this thread are asking why this would pertain to the case since it was only official acts that were covered in the Supreme Court ruling.
Although the Manhattan case does not center on Mr. Trump’s presidency or official acts — but rather personal activity during his campaign — his lawyers argued on Monday that prosecutors had built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only cannot charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations.
Is it typical for a lawyer to, partly, build a case using things that happened after the person did what they were accused of doing?
Assuming this is fine and normal, this would mean they would need to first get judicial review to determine if the incidents they’re citing are ‘core’ (Article II) official acts or not. Peripheral official acts, assuming a judge demes them to be, would certainly be admissible.
Yes, post-offence conduct is commonly used as circumstantial evidence in trial. Regarding the hush money case, I think a big goal for Trump’s team is to delay the sentencing until after the election.
Lots of people in this thread are asking why this would pertain to the case since it was only official acts that were covered in the Supreme Court ruling.
So corruption is legal now
Effectively yes. The SCOTUS has been hard at work over the past few months dismantling government checks and balances. They’ve ruled that politicians can throw out rulings from experts, take bribes without consequence, and attempt to overthrow the results of an election.
Corruption has been legal since 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United vs. FEC
Only for the wealthy and those peripherally connected.
Is it typical for a lawyer to, partly, build a case using things that happened after the person did what they were accused of doing?
Assuming this is fine and normal, this would mean they would need to first get judicial review to determine if the incidents they’re citing are ‘core’ (Article II) official acts or not. Peripheral official acts, assuming a judge demes them to be, would certainly be admissible.
Yes, post-offence conduct is commonly used as circumstantial evidence in trial. Regarding the hush money case, I think a big goal for Trump’s team is to delay the sentencing until after the election.