Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) |
Author: albaby1 🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 48489 
Subject: Re: 34X Felon Says He Has Immunity...
Date: 07/03/2024 12:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
If albaby is correct in his assessment, that motion has no chance because Trump wasn't POTUS when most of that went down. There was nothing official about falsifying business records, and it didn't happen while he was POTUS (and therefore didn't have the immunity regardless). Let's see if albaby was right.

AIUI, though, the motion won't be based on an argument that any of the acts alleged in the indictment were immune. As you point out, they took place before he was President. Rather, it will argue that the prosecution used Presidential records relating to immune acts that Trump took while President.

I couldn't find the actual motion (it might not yet have been filed), but I found the pre-motion notification to the court at the below link, which summarizes the argument:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Let...

Basically, there's some witness testimony, a number of public statements that Trump made while President, and a 2018 Office of Government Ethics report that the defense had asked to be excluded because they related to things that took place while Trump was serving as President.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (3) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds