New York prosecutors say evidence in Trump trial was ‘overwhelming’ and conviction should stand
Any error, they argued in a filing Thursday, is “harmless” when viewed against “overwhelming evidence” of the former president’s guilt.
Trump’s lawyers argued his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records should be vacated after the Supreme Court ruled that evidence of a president’s official acts should not be used in a trial. They specifically highlighted testimony from former White House aide Hope Hicks and tweets from Trump’s Twitter account.
Prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office said the conviction should stand.
“For all the pages that defendant devotes to his current motion, the evidence that he claims is affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling constitutes only a sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof that the jury considered in finding him guilty of all 34 felony charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” prosecutors wrote.
Despite Trump's lawyers appealing for the vacancy of his conviction due to the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential acts, the significance of the disputed evidence is minimal compared to the extensive proof used in the original trial, as stated in the prosecutors' response to the appeal in politics.
In light of the ongoing political debate about Trump's conviction, it's crucial to consider the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential acts and how it pertains to the former president's case in politics.
