I think the immumity case may address this as well. As Trump “supposedly” performed his “criminal” acts while President, if the SC rules he has immunity, then wouldn’t that overturn the conviction?
Seems like it would— it would render this “case” as being moot— a legal term for being rendered NEUTER— having no force of law. Not the charging, the bringing of the case trying to federalize a supposed state crime that wasn’t.. etc.
Immunity would obviate this entire ridiculous case- to oblivion.
think the immumity case may address this as well. As Trump “supposedly” performed his “criminal” acts while President, if the SC rules he has immunity, then wouldn’t that overturn the conviction?
****************************
Uh, I think there’s a little problem with your theory. In no possible way could Trump’s business book keeping be considered official presidential acts, so not covered by immunity.
“As Trump “supposedly” performed his “criminal” acts while President….”
———————-
If the acts were performed while he was President, then how on earth could they have influenced the 2016 presidential election? Trump doesn’t look much like Marty McFly to me.
“As Trump “supposedly” performed his “criminal” acts while President,”
He wasn’t in 2015.