Judge Rejects Trump’s Bid to Dismiss Hush Money Conviction \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A Manhattan judge rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss his hush money conviction based on the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling. Judge Juan M. Merchan ruled the evidence in question—related to Trump’s presidential actions—posed no risk to executive authority. Trump’s team argues the ruling violates constitutional protections, but the case’s future remains uncertain as Trump prepares to return to office on January 20.
Trump’s Hush Money Conviction: Quick Looks
- Judge’s Ruling: Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan rejected Trump’s request to dismiss the conviction.
- Supreme Court Context: Trump’s team cited a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
- Trump’s Conviction: Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in 2016.
- Prosecutors’ Argument: The contested evidence, tied to Trump’s presidency, was deemed “a sliver” of the overall case.
- Next Steps: Trump’s lawyers continue to challenge the conviction as he prepares for his January return to office.
Deep Look
Background of the Case
Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the closing days of his 2016 presidential campaign. Prosecutors argued the payment was part of a scheme to hide damaging information from voters regarding Daniels’ allegations of a sexual encounter with Trump years earlier. Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that nothing sexual occurred.
Following the jury’s guilty verdict, Trump’s lawyers seized on the Supreme Court’s June 2024 ruling on presidential immunity. The decision held that former presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts conducted while in office and that evidence tied to such actions cannot be used to bolster cases based on personal conduct. Trump’s legal team argued the ruling applied to his hush money case because certain evidence presented by prosecutors—such as White House aides’ testimony, Trump’s financial disclosure forms, and social media posts made during his presidency—were tied to his official actions.
Judge Merchan’s Ruling
“The decision to use 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 wrote in his ruling.
Merchan emphasized that even if errors occurred in presenting evidence tied to Trump’s presidency, they would be “harmless” given the “overwhelming evidence of guilt”. Prosecutors downplayed the contested evidence, arguing it represented only a small fraction of their case.
Trump’s Response
Trump’s communications director Steven Cheung issued a statement condemning the ruling, calling it a “direct violation” of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.
Trump and his legal team have consistently characterized the case as politically motivated. They are expected to continue exploring additional avenues to challenge the conviction in higher courts.
Prosecutors’ Position
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which brought the charges against Trump, declined to comment on Monday’s ruling. Prosecutors have previously argued that Trump’s conviction is rooted firmly in his personal conduct, not his presidential duties.
The Road Ahead
Prosecutors have acknowledged the unique challenge of pursuing legal matters against a sitting president but insist the conviction is valid and should stand regardless of Trump’s upcoming term.
Key Takeaways
As Trump prepares to take office, the case highlights the unprecedented legal challenges surrounding his presidency and the potential constitutional battles ahead.
Judge Rejects
You must Register or Login to post a comment.