A judge on Monday refused to overturn US President-elect Donald Trump’s conviction overturned in the Supreme Court’s latest ruling on presidential immunity. But the future of this case is not clear.
The decision by Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan removes a potential setback in the case before the former and incoming president returns to office next month. However, Trump’s lawyers have raised other grounds for dismissal. It’s unclear if – or when – a sentencing date might be set.
Prosecutors say there should be an accommodation for his presidency, but say the conviction should stand.
A jury convicted Trump in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 US hush money payment to sex actress Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies wrongdoing.
The allegations involve a scheme to cover up a payment to Daniels in the final days of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to keep from revealing — and prevent voters from hearing — his claim of having sex with a former businessman years ago. He says that nothing sexual happened between them.
Supreme Court decision after decision
A few weeks after the ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts — things they did while in office — and that prosecutors cannot cite those acts to bolster a personal case. , illegal behavior.
Trump’s lawyers then cited a Supreme Court opinion to argue that the federal judge found improper evidence, such as Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from other White House aides and social media posts made while in office.
In Monday’s ruling, Merchan denied several of Trump’s allegations that some of the prosecutors’ testimony related to official acts and immunity defenses.
The judge said that even if he found that some evidence related to official conduct, he would still find that the prosecutors’ decision to use “these actions as evidence of personal actions to falsify business records does not present a risk of interference by the authorities and the work of the executive branch.”
Even if prosecutors had mistakenly introduced evidence that could be challenged under a defense claim, Merchan continued, “such error was harmless because of the preponderance of the evidence.”
Prosecutors said the evidence in question was “undercover” in their case.
Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, on Monday called Merchan’s decision “a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity, and other long-standing rule of law.”
“This illegal case should not have been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be dismissed immediately,” Cheung said in a statement.
The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who prosecuted the case, declined to comment.
Merchan’s decision noted that part of the Supreme Court’s ruling ruled that “not everything the president does is legal.” Trump’s social media posts, for example, were personal, Merchan wrote.
Former US president Donald Trump was found guilty in his hush money case in New York. CBC’s Anya Zoledziowski analyzes the key evidence and witnesses that led the jury to the historic verdict.
He also pointed to a previous federal court ruling that concluded the hush money payments and subsequent refunds related to Trump’s private life, not official duties.
Trump, 78, takes office on Jan. 20. He is the first former president to be convicted of a crime and the first convicted felon to be elected to office.
Push to see conviction, case dismissed
Over the past six months, Trump’s lawyers have made several attempts to have the case dismissed along with the entire case. After Trump won last month’s election, Merchan indefinitely postponed his sentencing — which had been scheduled for the end of November — so defense lawyers and prosecutors could plan next steps.
Trump’s defense argued that anything short of an immediate impeachment would disrupt the transition of power and cause an unconstitutional “interference” in the presidency.
Meanwhile, prosecutors are proposing several ways to save the historic conviction. Among the proposals: suspending the case until Trump leaves office in 2029; agreeing that any future sentence will not include prison time; or closing the case by saying that he was convicted but was not sentenced and his appeal was not resolved because he took office.
The latter idea is drawn from what other states do when a defendant dies after being convicted but before sentencing.
Trump’s lawyers called the idea “absurd” and opposed other proposals.
Source link
