No. of Recommendations: 4
ok, this makes no sense per scotus immunity ruling.
crimes occurred prior to election, so unofficial act, not to mention the act itself.
trump discussed\lied about the act while president, so utilizing documentation of such (even if by even the criminal's lawyers) tanks the whole thing?
It doesn't tank the whole thing - because, as you point out, immunity does not attach to acts that were taken before Trump became President.
However, Trump has immunity for various acts he took as President. For acts to which immunity attaches, discussions and conversations and documents that would provide the motives or reasoning behind those acts is not admissible at trial. And those acts themselves cannot be used as evidence to prove other crimes.
Trump is arguing not that the actions taken prior to his being elected are immune, but that some of the evidence that was used in his trial (some witness testimony and evidence compiled as part of ethics reviews, IIRC) should have been excluded.
