• Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    His team claims that the evidence used was gathered during the presidency, when he was immune.

    If I read the ruling correctly, this is where the problem is. If I interpreted the ruling correctly, any evidence gathered during his presidency is considered privileged and therefore can’t be used against Trump. Since at least some of the crime was committed (him signing the checks) and some of the evidence was gathered while he was in office, this ruling makes that evidence inadmissable, and therefore the verdict invalid.

    • oxjox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It doesn’t make it inadmissible. They have filed a claim that it’s inadmissible. Now it needs to be reviewed.

      These are clearly not official presidential actions. It won’t hold up but it’s going to be delayed forever.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        And that review will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, where they just got finished saying that acts taken in office can’t even be used as evidence against him in unrelated cases. By that logic, it’s pretty open-and-shut. Trump received documents and signed checks while he was president and taking care of official business. The fact that he signed those checks in office makes him signing them inadmissible evidence, and without that evidence a lot of the case falls apart. His convictions will likely be thrown out.

        • oxjox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          acts taken in office can’t even be used as evidence against him

          They didn’t say that. They said core acts are immune. These are defined in Article II. Perimeter acts, which will need judicial review to be determined, can be used as evidence.

          • theluckyone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Back in the late 80’s, my dad was a trucker, hauling asphalt. Pulled into the depot on a Friday night expecting to go home (he was already over hours and cooking the log book). Dispatcher told him to take another load out. Dad pointed at the five fresh drivers playing poker around a table, told the dispatcher to send one of them.

            Monday morning, they fired him, and told him why, straight to his face and the voice recorder sitting in his pocket.

            According to OSHA and Dad’s lawyer, it was an open and shut case. While the case was pending, the company blackballed Dad from the trucking industry. Being in St. Lawrence County of Upstate NY, he wasn’t able to find a job elsewhere either. They buried us in paperwork, delayed the court case, and starved us out. Two years later, Dad settled. After the lawyer, he got a measely $12k.

            Trump and the judiciary are going to do the same damn thing to this country. Doesn’t matter whether he’s guilty. They’re gonna delay and stall and bury us in paperwork until we starve and settle for table scraps.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Only if the prosecutors can successfully prove they weren’t official acts, which will be non-trivial since so many things (like talking to advisors) are themselves official acts. It’s really unclear how functionally pierceable that outer layer of presumed immunity is. The burden to bypass it is placed with the prosecutors, and any decision can be appealed back to the Supreme Court that wrote a whole nonsense provision to protect him even in this state trial.

            • oxjox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I fully agree with you. This is now our reality. That doesn’t mean these hot takes barely based off of the first paragraph of the syllabus or one sentence of a dissenting opinion are more true.

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      And this is exactly where you would most likely find evidence of “unofficial actions”. The president is not personally going out and doing these actions themselves, they’re using their administration. All those communications are now inadmissible. They tried to make it seem like they weren’t fully siding with Trump, but they absolutely are.