Donald J. Trump’s lawyers want to argue that a Supreme Court decision giving presidents immunity for official acts should void his felony conviction for covering up hush money paid to a porn star.
Lots of people in this thread are asking why this would pertain to the case since it was only official acts that were covered in the Supreme Court ruling.
Although the Manhattan case does not center on Mr. Trump’s presidency or official acts — but rather personal activity during his campaign — his lawyers argued on Monday that prosecutors had built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only cannot charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations.
Lots of people in this thread are asking why this would pertain to the case since it was only official acts that were covered in the Supreme Court ruling.
So corruption is legal now
Only for the wealthy and those peripherally connected.