/2 ….will reject the argument based on finding that those conversations were not official acts and that including it was harmless error.
Trump will appeal from NY’s highest court to SCOTUS.
/3 5 or 6 SCOTUS judges, who normally love harmless error like a 15-year-old-boy loves a tube sock, will find that it doesn’t apply to introduction of evidence of Presidentially-immune acts, and that the NY court didn’t analyze official acts doctrine right and remand for more proceedings.
I’m really quite confused on the exclusionary rule re: conversations as evidence establishing official acts/presumptively immune/unofficial acts vs conversations as official acts.
Agree, and I worry what SCOTUS will do, but by then maybe there is some sanity, or Barrett will be able to point out the insanity of the position.
But bad news for Trump--the sentencing will go forward September 18. And he will be wishing he would have done it in July.
He’s never going to jail but if he can still be found guilty and naughty in September that helps us through the election. Gets us one more news cycle, then the SC will do whatever they do afterwards
Won't that be an offense against state sovereignty? At least as great as requiring a court to consider evidence of innocence when a person sentenced to death?
I know, silly me.
Given there are extenuating circumstances Justice Merchan can consider in sentencing (10 acts of contempt, disrespectful courtroom behavior, etc), could he get a wild hare up his ass and order Trump held in custody pending appeal? I understand how unlikely but Merchan has to be chapped-ass by now.