The call was made Jan 2, 2021 and he was still president until Jan 20
The advantage the SCOTUS ruling provides the Hush Money defense is that potentially some of the evidence could retroactively be ruled inadmissible. Not the charge itself, just some of the evidence. See my previous post. It doesn’t make the appeal into a slam dunk, but it does give them a little more ammunition.
Inadmissible evidence would mean a new trial. An appeal court can’t reevaluate the decision based on a subset of evidence.
ETA: One thing an appeal court could do I think is determine that the inadmissible evidence wasn’t enough to influence the verdict…
Only if the trial judge decides that the remaining evidence is insufficient to support a guilty verdict, as I said. If he does, new trial. If not, maybe a new trial, depending upon the success of the appeal.
And if the evidence is deemed to be prohibited in the first place.
The falsifying of business records (which was the criminal action he was convicted of) happened in 2021 or later, which was during the Trump Admin. However, a judge would have to perform some incredible mental gymnastics (of the recto-cranial impaction variety) to rule that falsifying the records of a private business is an official presidential action. Not saying that Thomas and Alito are incapable of performing those gymnastics, mind you.
Once again, that’s not the peril the verdict has been placed in. It’s just about what was admitted into evidence and whether or not it was permissible.
I don’t think you mean 2021 in this statement, as he was no longer President after 1/20/2021.
Wasn’t he an official (the President) until the new President was sworn in on Jan 20?
You’re right. I meant 2017 or later. Good catch.
Just read something interesting (but awful). Not sure if it was mentioned above or not. The immunity ruling basically says you can’t be charged when you do official acts. Nothing charged in this case involved an official act. So that’s that, right? No so fast…
The majority immunity opinion, weirdly, also says you cannot even introduce evidence of official acts (to help you prove the unofficial acts you’re charging). Doing so, they say, would confuse and/or bias the jury. Summary of relevant part of opinion here: "[if jurors hear about an official act, even while adjudicating crimes relating to unofficial acts, they’ll run a “unique risk” of becoming “prejudiced by their views of the president’s policies and performance while in office.]”
Here, for example, Hope Hicks testified about stuff Trump did while President (official acts). I think it was to help prove his state of mind that what he did back in 2016 was wrong. I’m guessing, but I do know there absolutely was evidence used that could be considered official acts. And now the SC says you can’t do that.
So that immunity ruling helped the J6 case, the documents case (heavy use of Thomas concurrence), and probably this one, too.
News article: man charged with making threats against Judge Merchan and a prosecutor:
The right wing terrorism continues…
Judge Merchan has set the sentencing date for September 18. If it should include prison time for his nibs (please, oh, please) is there any reason besides courtesy for not taking him in directly from the courtroom?
In NY, generally, perps can stay out during the first appeal.
Where’s that disappointed emoji?
It wont stop his sentence- and the Judge could impose reasonable restrictions, such as no consorting with known felons. 
Most legal experts agree trump has little chance of getting any appeal upheld.
Note that such a restriction could put a dent in the way trump does things.
and that was back in May.
Like Jesse Pinkman said, “You don’t want a criminal lawyer, you want a criminal lawyer.”
Donald Trump loses gag order appeal in hush money case - 6abc Philadelphia
another loss for trump, revised gag order stands.
Is Trump out on bail in this case?
If so, how is it that he publicly threatened to flee the country in his Tuesday night Elon Musk interview and stil is free?
It’s not that I’m pining for Trump to be jailed. A sentence of probation may be appropriate. But wouldn’t you normally revoke bail if the defendant, whether before or after trial, threatens to flee?
I could put this same question in the threads for other Trump cases, but will start here.