Donald Trump’s lawyers have asked for the former president’s conviction in his hush-money criminal case to be overturned and his sentencing this month delayed, US media report.

A letter sent by Trump’s lawyers to the New York judge presiding over the trial reportedly cites Monday’s Supreme Court ruling that granted the former president immunity from prosecution for official actions he took while in office.

In May, Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. He will be sentenced on 11 July.

His team points out that he signed off the records while president in 2017, but one lawyer suggested this was unlikely to be considered an official act.

  • @qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1236 days ago

    I will be beyond furious if it gets overturned. There’s no way in hell hush money is an official act

    • @FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      855 days ago

      He wasn’t even president at the time of the hush payment was he? There’s no way that could be considered an official act. Unless maybe the supreme Court was full of bribable puppets, with 1/3 of them having been appointed by the convicted felon.

      Oh, shit.

      • @Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        65 days ago

        No he was not, he used campaign finances for the hush money and once he got the pres he stopped upkeeping the agreement and didn’t care which provided proof that it was purely about the election and thus furthered the claim of election interference.

        All of that happened before he was pres. It cannot be an official act if you weren’t an official yet.

    • partial_accumen
      link
      fedilink
      275 days ago

      There’s no way in hell hush money is an official act

      The hush money wasn’t the illegal part. It was covering up the hush money payments that was illegal and what he was convicted on.

      • @Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 days ago

        This is wrong too lmao. It was not about covering up the payments that caused the trouble, it’s because he USED CAMPAIGN FINANCES to fund the hushmoney payments to ensure none of it reached the public before the election (hence the evidence showing he didn’t give a fuck once he had the pres)

      • themeatbridge
        link
        fedilink
        15 days ago

        The covering up happened before he was elected. It could not be an official act.

    • @dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      No, but the issue is that some of the evidence that was presented at trial came from after Trump was President, and members of his inner circle had White House roles. Under this new doctrine, simply presenting that evidence that involved White House officials would no longer be allowed, even if that evidence pointed to a crime. So the judge now has to make a determination of how much of the prosecution’s case depended on that. The Judge himself may have to throw the verdict out, if too much of that seeped into the trial. It wouldn’t let Trump totally off the hook, but would necessitate a new trial. Which is bullshit, because there’s nothing the prosecution could have done about it. The SC changed the rules after the trial was over.

      This was the very point that Amy Coney Barrett wrote about in her concurring opinion, she felt this part went too far. So this evidentiary point was really decided 5-4, and seems to be the most egregious part of it.

      And now, all any corrupt President needs to do is give their corrupt friends roles in the Administration, and they can do all the crime they want, knowing that prosecutors are shielded from ever using evidence from those people in court.

      • @girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        125 days ago

        As a Canadian, with whom you share the longest undefended border in the world and billions of dollars in cross-border trade, I feel bad for you all.

        But I think we might have to build our own wall soon to keep this kind of shit out of Canada.

        • @dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          75 days ago

          Hey, can you let me in? I prefer Tim Hortons coffee to Dunkin, that’s gotta be worth some expedited consideration.

          I was in Montréal a few years ago and thought it was awesome that Tim’s served fast food Poutine.

  • @BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    655 days ago

    The Party of Jesus Christ just made Fucking a Porn Star behind your Pregnant Wife’s back and then using your Sheep’s Money to keep her quiet an OFFICIAL Act of the Presidency! And DEMOCRATS are the Swamp!

    • circuitfarmer
      link
      fedilink
      55 days ago

      Trump never wanted to “drain the swamp”. He wanted people to look elsewhere. He is the swamp.

    • @Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55 days ago

      The Federalist Society is the actual “swamp”/deepstate. Just look at them ruling from the highest bench in the nation. They are kingmakers and drain the swamp was just another projected lie.

    • @Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35 days ago

      No, that’s not at all what they did.
      All those things happened before he was president. None of it would count.

      This ruling is about his January 6th trial, and the Georgia election interference trial.

      • FartsWithAnAccent
        link
        fedilink
        13
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        He has not yet been convicted of either of those, so there is nothing to overturn. He’s talking about the hush money case.

        • @Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 days ago

          Yes I know that’s what they’re talking about. And this SCOTUS ruling doesn’t effect that case at all.

          This case was brought to SCOTUS by Trumps Jan6 lawers. It only matters to things done while in office.

          The bribery case, the falsified documents case, aren’t at all effected by this ruling.

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices
        link
        fedilink
        75 days ago

        no, he arranged for the payments before being president, but signed off on them afterwards, in 2017, while he was president.

        • @Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 days ago

          Ah! I didn’t realize that. Then it might derail that conviction.

          Thought it would still be a big lift to determine it was an official act as POTUS.

          • @ulkesh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            35 days ago

            That is the whole point of the ruling – to cause confusion and allow there to be an argument that it was an official act. It’s clearly not and any logical and reasonable person would see that, but logic and reason doesn’t exist in this country anymore.

  • @zabadoh@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    315 days ago

    I hate to say this, but the only way to save US democracy is for Biden to use this new “absolute immunity” to arrest or assassinate the SCOTUS and DJT and other enemies of pluralistic democracy.

    I doubt that DJT and his allies would hesitate to do the same to their perceived “enemies”

    • @Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      105 days ago

      He already wanted the National Guard to shoot BLM protesters. That seems like a pretty immune act in this ruling. Get some 18 year old conservative shithead guardsman pulled in from bumfuck county to the godless city to pull the trigger and start the shooting and he’s all good.

  • @Gerudo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    335 days ago

    Since the case was brought and tried before the ruling, how is the ruling retroactive?

    • Fire Witch
      link
      115 days ago

      So you think SCROTUS gives a single fuck? They start with a ruling first then work backwards to justify it.

      • @Phoonzang@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        15 days ago

        “All the riches of these lands are mine, all of Gastown is MINE!” Scabrous Scrotus, yeah, sounds about right.

    • @SeattleRain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35 days ago

      Because he was running for President. Can’t be President unless you run so that counts as an official act too.