Trump’s Lawyers Push to Dismiss Hush Money Conviction

Yesterday at 4:42 pm

875 posts

Trump’s Lawyers Push to Dismiss Hush Money Conviction \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Updated \ Evening Edition \ President-elect Donald Trump’s legal team is pushing to dismiss his historic hush money conviction, arguing it interferes with his ability to prepare for his presidency. Manhattan prosecutors oppose the dismissal but have suggested delaying sentencing until after Trump’s term. The case, which marks the first conviction of a former U.S. president, has sparked legal and political debates over accountability and executive privilege.

Trump Lawyers Fight to Overturn Hush Money Conviction Amid Transition: Quick Looks

Defense Argument: Trump’s attorneys claim the conviction disrupts his presidential transition and contradicts the voters’ mandate.
Prosecution’s Position: Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg insists the verdict stands but may agree to delay sentencing.
Historic Conviction: Trump was found guilty in May of falsifying records related to a hush money payment during the 2016 election.
Case on Hold: Sentencing has been postponed indefinitely, with further filings expected by Dec. 20.
Potential Consequences: Trump could face fines, probation, or up to four years in prison if the case proceeds.
Legal Precedent: The case raises questions about executive accountability and the intersection of politics and the judiciary.

Deep Look

The legal battle over President-elect Donald Trump’s hush money conviction has intensified as his legal team pushes to have the case dismissed before he takes office in January. Trump’s attorneys argue that continuing the proceedings would interfere with his ability to govern effectively and contradict the mandate given by voters in the recent election.

This legal clash has placed Trump’s historic conviction, the first of a former U.S. president, at the center of a broader debate over executive privilege, accountability, and the judiciary’s role in political affairs.

Defense Pushes for Dismissal

In a letter to Judge Juan M. Merchan, Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove emphasized that voters’ decision to return Trump to the presidency supersedes the concerns of prosecutors, who represent the “People of the State of New York.”

“The Nation’s People issued a mandate that supersedes the motivations of (the district attorney’s) ‘People,’” they wrote.

The defense further warned that prolonged appeals could overlap with Trump’s second term, creating complications for his administration. Blanche and Bove described the case as “politically motivated and fatally flawed,” signaling their intent to file additional motions by Dec. 20.

Prosecution’s Response

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, has strongly opposed dismissing the case, arguing that the sanctity of the jury’s verdict must be upheld. Speaking to the Citizens Crime Commission, Bragg highlighted the need to balance competing constitutional interests.

“We have significant competing constitutional interests — the office of the presidency and all the complications that come with that, and on the other hand, the sanctity of the jury verdict,” Bragg said.

While opposing dismissal, Bragg acknowledged the complexities of pursuing a case against a sitting president. Prosecutors suggested delaying sentencing until after Trump’s term to minimize potential conflicts with his presidential duties.

Background of the Conviction

Trump was convicted in May of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The payment was intended to suppress allegations of an extramarital affair during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has denied the allegations and maintains that the case is politically motivated.

The conviction marked a historic moment in U.S. history, as no former president had ever been found guilty of a crime. If the conviction stands, Trump could face penalties ranging from fines and probation to a maximum of four years in prison.

Case Status and Timeline

The case is currently on hold, with sentencing originally scheduled for Nov. 26 postponed indefinitely. Judge Merchan has not set deadlines for further filings or rulings, leaving the case’s future uncertain.

Trump’s legal team has indicated that their strategy may be influenced by developments in two federal cases overseen by special counsel Jack Smith. These cases could provide insights into how Trump’s legal challenges will intersect with his presidential duties.

Broader Legal Implications

The hush money case has far-reaching implications for legal precedent and executive accountability. A dismissal would erase Trump’s conviction, potentially setting a controversial precedent for handling criminal cases involving former presidents.

Critics argue that dismissing the case undermines the judiciary’s independence and allows political figures to evade accountability. Supporters of Trump counter that the prosecution is a politically motivated effort to undermine his presidency and disrupt his ability to govern.

Political Ramifications

The case also highlights the polarized nature of American politics, with Trump’s supporters rallying against what they perceive as a biased judicial system. The president-elect’s legal troubles have become a rallying point for his base, further solidifying his narrative of being targeted by a “deep state.”

Prosecutors, meanwhile, have emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that no individual is above accountability.

Potential Outcomes

If the case proceeds to sentencing, Trump could face financial penalties, probation, or imprisonment. However, delaying sentencing until after his term would create a unique legal scenario, potentially placing the judiciary in uncharted territory.

Alternatively, a dismissal would erase the conviction entirely, enabling Trump to begin his second term without the shadow of legal repercussions.

Conclusion

The legal battle over Trump’s hush money conviction is a defining moment in the intersection of law and politics. As Trump prepares to take office, the outcome of this case will have profound implications for his presidency, the judiciary’s role in political matters, and the broader landscape of executive accountability in the United States.