I had read that they used conversations, texts from President Trump, that occurred while in office, as part of the evidence against him. Not a lawyer, but I think, if they showed the jury ANYTHING that is covered by the presumption of immunity that the case gets tossed, period. Other thoughts from more lawyerly people here?
The Court’s decision, written by Roberts, specifically said immunity does not carry to acts prior to taking office, personal acts committed while in office (That’s why Grant got a traffic ticket of sorts), or acts committed after leaving office. Also, if the president is impeached, charges could be levied with regard to why he was impeached.
Any competent lawyer would argue that though President Trump, though in a position of immunity, was discussing a prior criminal activity, in effect a furtherance of that criminal activity, thus not protected, and the lawyer would be correct.
Again, before I am attacked, I am not saying that is what happened. I don’t believe Trump is guilty of anything in the Bragg case. It is unclear to anyone precisely of what he was convicted, even to the jury.
In effect there is no crime. No one has EVER been convicted of this and no one else ever will be convicted of this. It is arbitrary and capricious.