Trump's legal team is challenging his hush money conviction in light of the Supreme Court ruling that official presidential acts are immune from prosecution. Although the prosecution case was largely based on actions by Trump before he was elected, there was definitely evidence introduced from Trump's time in the White House, including testimony from communications director Hope Hicks, tweet and phone records from Trump while in office, and financial disclosure forms he filled out in 2018 while in office.

My question is - how will/should the prosecution respond to this argument?
Do they take the approach that the evidence introduced from Trump's time in
the White house is peripheral to the case and that the jury would have still found Trump guilty had it been excluded? Or do they argue that even the evidence presented from the White House still falls into personal acts by
the president rather than official acts and is therefore not subject to the Supreme Court's definition of what should be excluded?

If the argument is that the evidence was peripheral to the case and would
not have altered the jury's verdict had it been excluded, how can any court
or judge make that determination? A jury verdict is based on the jury considering all evidence that was introduced, and I don’t really get how anyone can read the jury's minds after the fact and conclude they would have still voted the same way if certain evidence was excluded.

And if the argument is that the evidence introduced all involved unofficial
or personal acts by the president, it's hard to envision how this could
extend to such items as the financial disclosure documents, which are
legally required by anyone serving in an official capacity like president.

Maybe I'm not looking at this right, but it seems likely that whether by the presiding judge or some appeals court, the verdict will eventually be thrown out and a new trial possibly ordered.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)