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.

  • Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    No, that’s not at all what they did.
    All those things happened before he was president. None of it would count.

    This ruling is about his January 6th trial, and the Georgia election interference trial.

    • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      He has not yet been convicted of either of those, so there is nothing to overturn. He’s talking about the hush money case.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes I know that’s what they’re talking about. And this SCOTUS ruling doesn’t effect that case at all.

        This case was brought to SCOTUS by Trumps Jan6 lawers. It only matters to things done while in office.

        The bribery case, the falsified documents case, aren’t at all effected by this ruling.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ah! I didn’t realize that. Then it might derail that conviction.

        Thought it would still be a big lift to determine it was an official act as POTUS.

        • ulkesh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          That is the whole point of the ruling – to cause confusion and allow there to be an argument that it was an official act. It’s clearly not and any logical and reasonable person would see that, but logic and reason doesn’t exist in this country anymore.