If ANY of the evidence used in the trial came is connected to Trumps official acts as President, it most certainly falls under the immunity ruling. ALL of the evidence in the trial came from the time when Trump was in the White House.
It may be a hail mary, but it was aalso a point of contention in the trial itself.
07/02/2024 5:42:33 AM PDT
· 3 of 17 MortMan
to Libloather
Then, on Monday, the Supreme Court carved out a sizable swath of immunity for Trump from any criminal prosecution.
On Monday, SCOTUS reaffirmed that the President - ANY President - has complete immunity for core acts under his defined role (as identified in the constitution), and presumptive immunity for OFFICIAL acts. Unofficial acts are not immune.
They always want to pretend this hasn't been the standard forever.
“If, for whatever reason, there’s a change at the top of the ticket, you guys are in trouble with Donald Trump. Because the guy who was up there tonight is not a guy who’s going to inspire people,” Axelrod said of Trump on CNN. “He did not show in any way that he has changed from the guy who people have a very positive opinion of, for a lot of good reason.”
I can't decipher what he said here. First, Trump can't "inspire people", but then he's a "guy who people have a very positive opinion of". Unless the sentence is mixing subjects (first Trump, then Brandon), it makes no sense - and if the subject is mixed, it's a bald faced lie.
Hunter, James, and Frank could be charged criminally. So, they’d settle for avoidance of charges probably.
I'm not sure how effective a political promise of immunity would be, although being dems means that it might be ironclad, given the proclivities of the DOJ.