That’s probably right - I interpreted it as “one can’t take advantage of a new ruling if the event already happened,” but I may be out of my depth here!
The crime wasn’t the payment, it was the falsifying business records. And based solely on the information in this thread, the final signature for those false records did happen while he was in office in 2017.
Just because it happened when he was in office does not make it an official act, but thats their argument
He wasn’t the president when the crime was committed, ipso facto he didn’t have presidential immunity.
Ex post facto, yeah - believe that’s the term at play here
I think ex post facto would be passing a law that punishes people who broke the law before it existed.
Iso facto means “by that very fact”
That’s probably right - I interpreted it as “one can’t take advantage of a new ruling if the event already happened,” but I may be out of my depth here!
Doesn’t matter, that’s not the point. Delay and chaos are the point.
The crime wasn’t the payment, it was the falsifying business records. And based solely on the information in this thread, the final signature for those false records did happen while he was in office in 2017.
Just because it happened when he was in office does not make it an official act, but thats their argument
No, the crime isn’t the hush money, it’s the falsifying records. And THAT happened while he was president.