Thread by @NormEisen

BREAKING: Trump is seeking to stall his NY sentencing by claiming today’s immunity opinion somehow applies to his convictions for purely personal acts like 2016 election interference and creating phony business docs in 2017

It won’t work—a thread (1/x)

cnn.com/2024/04/25/opi…

First, he already raised immunity when he removed the Manhattan case to federal court

He lost

And then he abandoned his appeal! He’s collaterally estopped (2/x)

msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-…

In his opinion Judge Hellerstein found that Trump "has expressly waived any argument premised on a theory of absolute presidential immunity"

So it won’t work this time either (3/x)

Hellerstein also found that immunity does NOT apply bc the alleged campaign corruption and cover up were purely personal & political

It had nothing to do w/Trump’s official duties—which of course is exactly the test that SCOTUS established today (4/x)

nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/…

Despite that, Trump tried a version again before Judge Merchan

He slapped the motion down for being untimely

It hasn’t gotten any more timely now—Trump blew it by not raising before Merchan deadline

(7/x) justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…

The specific evidence that Trump seems to be complaining about the trial court allowing just doesn't make the cut under the immunity test--not even close

For ex, Trump seems to be kvetching abt official documents like the President's SF-278 financial filings that... (8/x)

...were introduced in the trial.

But the SCOTUS opinion expressly says on pg. 32 that "the prosecutor may point to the public record," and these were public record docs (9/x)

Then they apparently have some issues with the use of Trump's tweets like these, but they are also clearly both public & unofficial. That's a makeweight (10/x)

Then there's the fact that WH aides testified--but it too was abt their 2016 campaign activity or later clearly unofficial matters

I mean Madeleine Westerhout testimony abt how Trump's personal or business checks arrived from NY & were handled is by him in the WH... (11/x)

...is unrelated to official acts. Ditto her or Hope Hicks testifying abt their experiences in the 2016 campaign, or Hicks relating what Trump told her abt the hush money payments (12/x)

For example, here is Westerhout talking about the tweet handling. Tell me again how this is "official acts evidence"? It clearly fails the SCOTUS test (13/x)

Trump won't only lose this motion, I also think he should be sentenced to incarceration when the time does come in Sept. as I explain 👇

justsecurity.org/97186/trump-se…