Post #21040 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (5)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 4

ok, this makes no sense per scotus immunity ruling.

crimes occurred prior to election, so unofficial act, not to mention the act itself.
trump discussed\lied about the act while president, so utilizing documentation of such (even if by even the criminal's lawyers) tanks the whole thing?

It doesn't tank the whole thing - because, as you point out, immunity does not attach to acts that were taken before Trump became President.

However, Trump has immunity for various acts he took as President. For acts to which immunity attaches, discussions and conversations and documents that would provide the motives or reasoning behind those acts is not admissible at trial. And those acts themselves cannot be used as evidence to prove other crimes.

Trump is arguing not that the actions taken prior to his being elected are immune, but that some of the evidence that was used in his trial (some witness testimony and evidence compiled as part of ethics reviews, IIRC) should have been excluded.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (5)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.