Trump’s Lawyers Demand Hush Money Conviction Dismissal

Trump’s Lawyers Demand Hush Money Conviction Dismissal \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Donald Trump’s lawyers pressed a New York judge to dismiss his hush money conviction, calling prosecutors’ alternative proposals “absurd.” The Manhattan DA’s office suggested options to maintain the conviction, including halting proceedings during Trump’s presidency or treating the case as if Trump had died. The legal battle highlights the unprecedented nature of Trump’s position as a convicted president-elect.

Trump’s Hush Money Conviction Faces Legal Standoff: Quick Looks

• Defense Pushes for Dismissal: Trump’s lawyers call dismissal the only viable option.
• Prosecution Proposals: Options include freezing the case or treating Trump as if deceased.
• Hush Money Case Details: Conviction stems from falsified records tied to a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels.
• Presidential Immunity at Play: Defense argues ongoing proceedings threaten Trump’s ability to govern.
• Unprecedented Situation: Trump is the first president-elect with a criminal conviction.

Deep Look

The hush money case against President-elect Donald Trump reached a dramatic crossroads on Friday as his lawyers urged a Manhattan judge to dismiss the conviction outright. In a 23-page filing, Trump’s defense team called prosecutors’ alternative suggestions to preserve the conviction—ranging from freezing the case to treating it as if Trump had died—“absurd” and unconstitutional.

This legal showdown underscores the unprecedented nature of Trump’s status as a convicted president-elect and raises significant questions about the balance between criminal accountability and presidential immunity.

The Case and Conviction

Trump’s hush money case centers on a $130,000 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. Prosecutors argued that Trump falsified business records to conceal the payment, intended to silence Daniels about an alleged affair—a claim Trump denies.

In May 2023, a jury found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records, making him the first former president to be convicted of a crime. Sentencing was initially scheduled for late November, but it was delayed after Trump’s election victory on November 5.

Prosecutors’ Unconventional Proposals

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office proposed several novel approaches to preserve the jury’s guilty verdict while accommodating Trump’s upcoming presidency:

• Freezing the Case: The case would pause until Trump’s second term ends in 2029.
• No Jail Time: Prosecutors suggested limiting any future sentence to avoid imprisonment.
• “Deceased Defendant” Approach: The court could treat the case as if Trump had died, maintaining the conviction but acknowledging the sentence and appeal process were incomplete.

Prosecutors argued these options would uphold the jury’s findings without disrupting Trump’s presidency, emphasizing that “presidential immunity requires accommodation.”

Defense Pushes Back

Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, dismissed the proposals as legally and practically unworkable. They reiterated their stance that the conviction must be overturned to protect Trump’s ability to lead the nation without legal entanglements.

“Halting the case until President Trump leaves office would leave him governing under the ongoing threat of potential punishment,” they wrote, calling the suggestion unconstitutional.

The “deceased defendant” analogy, often applied when defendants die during appeal, drew sharp criticism from the defense. Blanche and Bove accused prosecutors of making an “irresponsible” and “troubling” comparison between Trump, who survived two assassination attempts this year, and a hypothetical dead defendant.

The defense argued that presidential immunity not only protects Trump from sentencing but requires the case to be dropped entirely.

Legal and Political Implications

Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial, faces a complex decision. He could grant Trump’s motion for dismissal, adopt one of the prosecution’s proposals, or wait for further developments, including Trump’s federal appeals to move the case out of state court.

The case raises questions about the intersection of presidential immunity and criminal accountability. The U.S. Justice Department has long maintained that sitting presidents cannot face prosecution, but Trump’s situation—convicted before returning to office—is without precedent.

Prosecutors argued that Trump’s conviction, obtained while he was out of office, should not be erased simply because he was re-elected. They cited other world leaders, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who have faced criminal trials while in office.

Broader Context

Trump’s legal challenges extend beyond the hush money case. Special Counsel Jack Smith recently ended federal cases involving Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents. Meanwhile, a Georgia state case on election interference remains on hold.

Trump denies all allegations of wrongdoing and has consistently framed the investigations as politically motivated. His legal battles have further polarized public opinion, with critics arguing they erode institutional trust and supporters viewing them as partisan attacks.

The hush money case is particularly significant, as it directly ties to Trump’s business practices and campaign conduct. Presidential pardons do not apply to state convictions, so even if Trump were to pardon himself federally, the hush money case would remain unresolved.

The Path Forward

Judge Merchan’s decision will likely set the tone for how Trump’s legal challenges unfold during his presidency. A dismissal would erase Trump’s conviction and remove the possibility of a prison sentence, while adopting one of the prosecution’s proposals would maintain the conviction’s historic significance.

As the legal wrangling continues, Trump prepares to take office on January 20, becoming the first convicted criminal to assume the presidency. The outcome of this case will likely have profound implications for the relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch and for the limits of presidential immunity.

More on Elections

Trump’s Lawyers Demand Trump’s Lawyers Demand