Donald Trump's sentencing for his 34 felony convictions was delayed by two months after the U.S. Supreme Court granted him presidential immunity for much of his conduct in the White House.
The presumptive Republican nominee's legal team requested the delay and asked New York Justice Juan Merchan to set aside the conviction, arguing that Manhattan prosecutors had used evidence they believe should have been off-limits under the immunity ruling.
And MSNBC's Lisa Rubin told "Morning Joe" that defense motion was better than most they had filed for Trump.
"They're not even arguing for a new trial, they're arguing to set aside the verdict," Rubin said. "The decision doesn't just stand for the president having immunity, but even offering official act evidence in any case, no matter whether it deals with official acts or purely personal or private conduct."
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, ruled that prosecutors could not use anything determined to be an official presidential act as evidence to prove that an unofficial act had been a crime, and Trump's lawyers say that should include social media posts from when he was president and witness testimony about Oval Office meetings.
"Let's rewind back in time to the Manhattan D.A.'s trial where even though the gravamen of the case was payments to Stormy Daniels and the cover-up through business records, there was evidence of things that happened during Donald Trump's presidency, including tweets he issued in May of 2018 where he admitted he reimbursed Michael Cohen," Rubin said.
"There's also an Office of Government Ethics financial disclosure Trump filed for the year 2017 that also admits to that reimbursement, and then there are a slew of other public statements and tweets that prosecutors said go to the pressure campaign on Michael Cohen not to flip from Donald Trump insinuating, 'If you stay in line, we'll take care of you, but if you turn me in, your life is about to become a living hell,' and, indeed, that's what happened to Michael Cohen."
ALSO READ: Trump hush money sentencing delayed after Supreme Court ruling: report
"The prosecution introduced all of that evidence at trial," Rubin added. "The defense is now saying none of that should have entered into evidence because it's all reflective of his official acts and, therefore, the verdict should be set aside."
Rubin isn't sure they'll succeed, but she conceded the defense arguments weren't quite as weak as some of the others they've offered in the case.
"I don't think that they'll win because I don't think any of that evidence was critical or pivotal to the prosecution proving all of the elements of the crime," Rubin said. "But it's not a crazy motion, as with some of the things they've tried in the past. It's certainly what I would describe as non-frivolous."
Watch the video below or at this link.
MSNBC 07 03 2024 06 40 44 youtu.be
