The 34 counts of falsifying business records that led to Trump’s felony conviction pretty much all correspond to specific checks or invoices. I’ve been trying to find what the dates of these checks and invoices are. If they are before Trump was inaugurated, the falsification is in no stretch of the imagination an official action of a president. Does anyone know any of these dates? Even if not, it’s hard to imagine, unless you’re DT, that falsification of these records is an official presidential action. Unfortunately, I can see the “official presidential action” argument applying to his discussions with Kemp in Georgia as well as to his hording of classified documents. But falsification of business records? Come on. That sounds like personal business to me.
Shouldn’t the information about the checks and invoices concerned be in the indictment?
Dates shouldn’t mater. Paying a porn star hush money about an affair is not an official act of the the Office of the President of the United States.
Also note, he used his own money, and tried to hide the act.
But that isn’t what he was found guilty of, he laundered the money and was found guilty of various business misdeeds.
I do not get this since none of this happened when he was president. There can be no question of “official acts” since he had no role in the government at the time.
In fact, I believe the SCOTUS ruled long ago that president Clinton could still be prosecuted, while he was president, for things he did before he was president. (Jones v. Clinton)
Yup, his OWN money. Certainly not an official act of the the office of the president.
None of the crimes he is responsible for - Extortion (for his personal benefit), Insurrection, stealing government documents and election tampering would fall under official acts.
SCOTUS must know that they a lying, and not protecting the constitution.
This SCOTUS doesn’t believe in precedent.
I mentioned in another thread that Presidential Immunity is not the gift the Supreme Court gave to Trump. It is the declaration that communications are off-limits as well. I believe that Trump’s lawyers are arguing that if you remove all testimony from witnesses who had any official role with the president, and all evidence from Trump’s texts (or others made using official channels), then the conviction should be thrown out since having heard such evidence prevented the jury from basing their decision on legally acceptable evidence.
Yep, we’re in the “Yes, maybe I committed the crimes, but you can’t touch me,” part of the situation. Trump’s supporters will never see that he’s nothing but a crime boss.
The checks to Michael Cohen – reimbursements for the hush money payments for Stormy Daniels – were written monthly during the year 2017, so – depending on the date of the first check – quite likely all written and signed (IIRC, nine of twelve were signed by Trump, himself) during the Trump Presidency:
In this case, I’m not entirely sure that @excavating_for_a_mind is correct. Michael Cohen made two Plea Agreements with the DOJ, each of which required his cooperation.
Similarly, David Pecker got a Non-Prosecution Agreement that required his cooperation with the Feds (SDNY U.S. Attorney’s Office).
And these weren’t the only two who provided inculpatory evidence of Trump’s guilt, possibly without being covered by SCOTUS’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” part of the ruling.
I think it will prove to be critical to understand whose communications with Trump (or vice versa) are truly deemed to be effectively privileged and whose are not.
Don’t misunderstand me. I am not claiming that all communications from or concerning the President are to be disallowed as evidence, but I suspect that Trump’s lawyers will be making that argument (or already have). Simply by making the prosecution justify every bit of communication (it’s a presumptive exemption) will certainly delay things. Enough will force a new trial. Perhaps have the charges dropped completely.
Frankly, I suspect the case will hold, but getting it settled before the election is likely impossible at this point.
Wouldn’t this SC decision put most (if not all) of the Nixon tapes off the table. You know, the ones the SC had said were fair game? Just more indication that this decision is merely whitewash attempting to hide a corrupt court.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Trump’s not the only one who can play the delay game. By delaying his decision until September, he has made it highly difficult for an appeal to reach the SC before the election. Trump will remain a convicted felon at least through election season.
Here is an analysis from CNN explaining why the immunity ruling shouldn’t affect the New York case:
There is also this. There will be an evidentiary hearing in September.
*Sometimes, pretrial, in the evidentiary process, prosecutors don’t want to turn over all their cards. But Jack Smith is going to have to turn over every single one of them. Because the Supreme Court has said to him, in effect, “We need to see every single one of your cards.” So every witness he has, he’s going to bring them into that courtroom. They’re all going to be under oath and the defense is going to be able to cross-examine them. The defense probably won’t bring in any witnesses at all. *
I saw the CNN opinion piece too. Merchan will presumably make a similar argument. This will ultimately go back to the SC.
Ouch!
Can an evidentiary hearing be televised since it’s not the actual criminal trial?