The Manhattan District Attorney has stated that all criminal charges in the case involve ‘unofficial acts’ and do not fall under presidential immunity. In a recent court filing, the district attorney’s office argues that former President Donald Trump’s criminal case and guilty verdict are not impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
The district attorney maintains that the Supreme Court’s decision does not affect the prosecution and would not support vacating the jury’s verdict or dismissing the indictment. The court ruling specified that presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional conduct, presumptive immunity for official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, attorneys representing Trump in his Manhattan case requested the indictment and verdict be thrown out. They argued that communications between Trump and his aides were used as evidence, but the district attorney contends that all charges stem from ‘unofficial acts’ for which there is no immunity.
Prosecutors also argue that the evidence in question is only a small part of the overall testimony and documentation considered by the jury, therefore not warranting dismissal of the case. The defense had raised objections related to presidential immunity during testimony from White House staff, but the objections were overruled by the judge.
Former President Trump faces charges of falsifying business records, and prosecutors assert that even without the contested evidence, the grand jury record supports the charges. The case is scheduled for sentencing on September 18, with the judge expected to rule on the presidential immunity arguments before then. Please rephrase this sentence.
Source link
