Trump Files to Have Hush-money Verdict Set Aside

The immunity ruling from the Supreme Court had no sooner come down than Donald Trump’s legal team started filing motions.

They immediately filed to have Trump’s hush-money verdict set aside due to the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents have immunity for acts relative to the normal course of business for a sitting president.

This motion will not be successful.

Not a Presidential Act

For some reason, Trump and his attorneys continue to think that anything Trump did will be excused by the court, and that is not the case.

Trump’s hush-money was paid as a private citizen, first of all, so this is not covered under presidential immunity.

Even so, this could tie up sentencing in the case for some time while the legalities of all this play out.

In the ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court wrote, “If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the ‘intended effect’ of immunity would be defeated.”

The act in question here was related to Trump’s business interests, even though it was being portrayed as part of his campaign, but regardless, it was not the act of a sitting president related to his duties as president.

There is so much misinformation from both sides being spewed right now that when this issue is finally settled, people are going to be outraged for no real reason other than the fact they have been fed bad information all along, and I refuse to be part of that mess.

To be honest, this will not even apply to Trump’s January 6 case, as that will likely be deemed a campaign rally even not the act of a president trying to protect the integrity of the election.

Trump had legal avenues as a president to pursue on that front and rest assured, holding a rally at the Capitol would not qualify.

I do know that is not what a lot of people want to hear, but that is the truth.

I may take months, or even years, for all this to play out, but just bookmark this article and come back to it when the dust settles and you will see just how right I was on all of this.

Both sides are painting a very deceptive picture of exactly what this ruling means, and for the most part, they are both dead wrong.