Manhattan prosecutors says they would be open to delaying Donald Trump’s sentencing in his criminal hush money case following a Supreme Court ruling that granted broad immunity protections to former presidents.
  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    English
    23·
    4 days ago

    defense attorneys argued that Manhattan prosecutors had placed “highly prejudicial emphasis on official-acts evidence,” including Trump’s social media posts and witness testimony about Oval Office meetings

    It’s unclear to me why an official act cannot be used as evidence that a different unofficial act occurred. Let’s say candidate Trump shoots Bob on Fifth Avenue and then, after being elected, threatens to “kill Joe the way [he] killed Bob” during his State of the Union address. He can’t be held accountable for threatening to kill Joe, but he did just confess that he killed Bob while he wasn’t president. Why couldn’t this confession be used as evidence in his trial for killing Bob? Or, for that matter, in his trial for killing Joe if he went on to kill Joe after he was out of office?

    • qantravon@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      4 days ago

      You’re right, it’s totally nonsensical. Clearly that was put in to screw with this specific situation.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      5·
      4 days ago

      The Supreme Court added in a provision to the ruling that official acts can’t be used as evidence for unofficial crimes. It’s based on absolutely nothing and tailor made to get Trump out of his legal troubles. It was bad enough that they lost Coney-Barrett on that part of the ruling so it was only 5-4 there. But it doesn’t need to make sense because they are the completely unchallengeable deciders and everyone else has to dutifully accept whatever new law they make up. They believe they’ve won and don’t need to pretend anymore.