I would encourage you to read up on the ruling, as this shows a very flawed understanding. The issue is immunity from official acts, and it's very similar to immunity shared by many other types of public officials.
LOL
I would encourage you to read up on the ruling. As Merchan points out:
This court need not decide whether the crimes of which Defendant was convicted constitute officials acts because Defendant concedes that they were decidedly unofficial.
Ooops. Yep, the claim is only that a subset of the evidence is potentially invalid, because it's somehow tied to "official acts." (More on this below.)
Either way, you haven't even
bothered to explain what "official act" was allegedly involved here. Keep in mind that public statements -- such as Dear Leader's publicly available Tweets -- were specifically exempted from protection by the SCOTUS ruling.
Further, while the defense did object to Hicks' testimony on the basis of potential immunity, they did not for Westerhout; therefore, that's not a valid path for appeal. (That's right in the ruling, I guess you missed it.)
That leaves Dear Leader's four discussions with Hicks, about matters not related to his official duties and... that's it. I.e. all the other evidence in the case is valid, including Pecker's testimony and earlier cover-up efforts, unreimbursed, on Dear Leader's behalf; Cohen's audio recordings, documents and testimony; all the checks; Giuliani blurting out that Dear Leader knew what the checks were for, and so on.
(And no, this isn't "similar" to other types of immunity, because... this type of immunity didn't exist until the SCOTUS conjured it out of thin air.)
It's rather hilarious that you think this is somehow an excuse to relitigate a case that Dear Leader blatantly lost.
It's also correct... which is presumably why you didn't even try to point out the potential flaws of my claim. Rather, this is exactly what the SCOTUS ruling entails, which is why it is so dangerous.
Heck, here you are, trying to excuse a Presidential candidate for fraudulently hiding hush money payments to a porn star before he takes office as an "official act." How is that not also "silly?"
Actually the 'crimes' and much of the evidence occurred after he became president. The issue of official acts being used as evidence very much applies.
lol... He committed crimes, and he was convicted. Ditch the scare quotes.
As to the evidence in question? That was rather thin. Merchan summarized it on pages 19-20, did you miss it? For example, her testimony about conversation #4:
"[Trump] spoke to Michael [Cohen], and that Michael had paid this woman to protect him [Defendant] from a false allegation, um, and that - you know, Michael felt like it was his job to protect him, and that's what he was doing. And he did it out of the kindness of his own heart. He never told anybody about it. You know. And he was continuing to try to protect him up until the point where he felt he had to state what was true."
Hicks was
protecting Trump in court, not providing evidence
against him. Her testimony was not crucial to the conviction. Even if it's out -- a claim that, again, doesn't add up -- it's nowhere
near critical enough to toss the case.
Defense attorneys are supposed to protect their client's rights.
That doesn't license them to file crappy briefs, rife with invalid arguments, over and over and over again.
And yes, improper evidence was used extensively in obtaining this verdict....
lol... No, it wasn't, because yet again... Dear Leader telling a White House staffer that he didn't authorize hush money payments to keep a porn star quiet about their affair is not an "official act."
Nor does the law work quite like you think it does. Convictions aren't tossed overboard because... testimony which
favors the defendant is later found to be inadmissible.
Of course, you'd know all this if you bothered to read Merchan's ruling. I guess that's too much to ask.
