Trump asks for conviction to be overturned after immunity ruling - eviltoast

Donald Trump’s lawyers have asked for the former president’s conviction in his hush-money criminal case to be overturned and his sentencing this month delayed, US media report.

A letter sent by Trump’s lawyers to the New York judge presiding over the trial reportedly cites Monday’s Supreme Court ruling that granted the former president immunity from prosecution for official actions he took while in office.

In May, Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. He will be sentenced on 11 July.

His team points out that he signed off the records while president in 2017, but one lawyer suggested this was unlikely to be considered an official act.

  • qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I will be beyond furious if it gets overturned. There’s no way in hell hush money is an official act

    • FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      86
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      He wasn’t even president at the time of the hush payment was he? There’s no way that could be considered an official act. Unless maybe the supreme Court was full of bribable puppets, with 1/3 of them having been appointed by the convicted felon.

      Oh, shit.

      • Pistcow@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The Supreme Court ruled that if a president is doing something presidential it’s presumed above board and can’t be questioned or used as evidence. Saying talking to Hope Hicks, his aid while in office, makes it Presidential and it need to be littigated that it wasn’t. A few pieces of evidence were used while he was President and in office so he says it’s presidential and he’s presumed immune until otherwise proved.

        This is the serious issue with the ruling. The President is responsible for the military branch so if he ordered someone assassinated by Seal Team 6 he’s immune with multiple layers given by the supreme court and it have to be worked upto the Supreme court that just gave him those powers which would take years.

        Democrats (Biden) wont test this theory but Trump already admited to becoming a dictator day one. Basically, a republican can never be elected aspresident, and if they do we become a fascist state.

          • Pistcow@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I mean, that’s the simplified description. I just explained the new mechanics.

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

          The President is responsible for the military branch so if he ordered someone assassinated by Seal Team 6 he’s immune with multiple layers given by the supreme court

          Seal Team 6 is probably pretty squarely in the absolute immunity realm, at least if he doesn’t the absolute minimum to try to say it’s for national security. That’s the stuff that shouldn’t even be challengeable.

          • Pistcow@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            He can use Seal Team 6 to assassinate Joe Biden, Bernie Sander, and Chris Gaians for being threats to the nation.

            President is in charge of ST6 she’s immune regardless how unlawful it is and you’d have yo worm your way to the supreme court for them to say it was an unofficial duty all while using ST6 to assassinate the next layer of judges.

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

        No he was not, he used campaign finances for the hush money and once he got the pres he stopped upkeeping the agreement and didn’t care which provided proof that it was purely about the election and thus furthered the claim of election interference.

        All of that happened before he was pres. It cannot be an official act if you weren’t an official yet.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      There’s no way in hell hush money is an official act

      The hush money wasn’t the illegal part. It was covering up the hush money payments that was illegal and what he was convicted on.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The hush money wasn’t illegal. It was the source of the money that was illegal. He illegally paid her with campaign money.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Other way around. It was business funds paying her, but since the payment was for a political purpose it should have been campaign funds and so it was an illegal political contribution that was then covered up (the actual crime in the end).

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        This is wrong too lmao. It was not about covering up the payments that caused the trouble, it’s because he USED CAMPAIGN FINANCES to fund the hushmoney payments to ensure none of it reached the public before the election (hence the evidence showing he didn’t give a fuck once he had the pres)

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          He continued to pay her after he took office. It wasn’t a one time payment, apparently.

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      No, but the issue is that some of the evidence that was presented at trial came from after Trump was President, and members of his inner circle had White House roles. Under this new doctrine, simply presenting that evidence that involved White House officials would no longer be allowed, even if that evidence pointed to a crime. So the judge now has to make a determination of how much of the prosecution’s case depended on that. The Judge himself may have to throw the verdict out, if too much of that seeped into the trial. It wouldn’t let Trump totally off the hook, but would necessitate a new trial. Which is bullshit, because there’s nothing the prosecution could have done about it. The SC changed the rules after the trial was over.

      This was the very point that Amy Coney Barrett wrote about in her concurring opinion, she felt this part went too far. So this evidentiary point was really decided 5-4, and seems to be the most egregious part of it.

      And now, all any corrupt President needs to do is give their corrupt friends roles in the Administration, and they can do all the crime they want, knowing that prosecutors are shielded from ever using evidence from those people in court.

      • girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        As a Canadian, with whom you share the longest undefended border in the world and billions of dollars in cross-border trade, I feel bad for you all.

        But I think we might have to build our own wall soon to keep this kind of shit out of Canada.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          Hey, can you let me in? I prefer Tim Hortons coffee to Dunkin, that’s gotta be worth some expedited consideration.

          I was in Montréal a few years ago and thought it was awesome that Tim’s served fast food Poutine.

        • Moneo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          We’re on the path to electing a pro-rich, anti-trans, anti-carbon tax conservative :/