Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan on Monday rejected attempt by President-elect Donald Trump to have his hush money conviction overturned, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. However, the future of the case remains uncertain as Trump’s legal team continues to pursue other arguments for dismissal.
Court Rejects Presidential Immunity Argument
In his decision, Judge Merchan dismissed the claim that Trump’s conviction should be nullified based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, which stated that ex-presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts performed during their presidency. Merchan determined that even if some evidence presented by prosecutors related to official conduct, it did not compromise the integrity of the case.
“The use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch,” Merchan stated.
Trump’s conviction stems from 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels during the closing days of his 2016 presidential campaign. The payment was allegedly intended to silence Daniels’ claims of an affair with Trump, which he denies.
Trump Legal Team and Prosecution Arguments
Trump’s legal team argued that some evidence presented during the trial, including his presidential financial disclosure forms, testimony from White House aides, and social media posts made during his presidency, improperly influenced the jury.
Steven Cheung, Trump’s communications director, criticized Merchan’s ruling, calling it a “direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity and other longstanding jurisprudence.” Cheung added, “This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed.”
Prosecutors, however, contended that the contested evidence represented only “a sliver” of their case and that Trump’s conviction should stand. They acknowledged the unique challenges posed by Trump’s impending presidency but insisted that accountability for the crimes was essential.
Allegations Against Trump
The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling established that ex-presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken in the course of their official duties. Trump’s defense had cited this precedent to argue for dismissal of the conviction, claiming that certain pieces of evidence improperly crossed the line between personal and official conduct.
The allegations against Trump revolve around an alleged scheme to obscure the hush money payment in his business records, which prosecutors described as personal misconduct rather than actions tied to his official role as president.
With Trump set to take office on January 20, the case’s progression remains unclear. While Merchan’s ruling removes one avenue for dismissal, Trump’s legal team has indicated its intent to continue challenging the conviction.
Prosecutors have suggested that accommodations may be made for Trump’s return to the presidency, but they remain steadfast in their position that the conviction should be upheld.
Also Read: Trump Embarrasses Reporter On Iran Preemptive Strike: ‘Is that a serious question?’
