Donald Trump asked a New York judge to toss out his hush money conviction because of the US Supreme Court ruling that presidents have at least some immunity from criminal charges, setting up a fresh fight with Manhattan prosecutors as his campaign to take back the White House heats up.
Trump’s guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records was tainted by testimony and other evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed at trial under the new standard set by the high court’s landmark decision stemming from Trump’s election fraud case, according to a filing that was provided by Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche Thursday.
Blanche said the document had been filed with the New York state court judge who’s presiding over the case and posted it on his law firm website Thursday afternoon. Bloomberg News couldn’t immediately verify that the motion had been received by the court.
The Supreme Court last week held that former presidents have at least some immunity from criminal charges related to official conduct, leaving them open to charges over private acts while in office. The majority held that presidents cannot be charged over official acts related to their core constitutional powers and that they have at least the presumption of immunity for acts within the “outer perimeter” of their presidential powers.
The justices went a step further by finding that evidence of official acts can’t be used to support charges over private conduct. The latter finding is what Trump’s lawyers have zeroed in on, saying the verdict hinged on “official acts” evidence.
“Your Honor now has the authority to address these injustices, and the court is duty-bound to do so in light of the Supreme Court’s decision,” Trump attorney Todd Blanche said in the filing to Justice Juan Merchan in Manhattan.
Crimes and Campaigns
Trump, 78, is fighting to overturn the conviction as he campaigns for his Nov. 5 rematch against President Joe Biden. Trump, who faces as many as four years in prison, claims the hush money case and his three other criminal indictments are part of a “witch hunt” against him by Democrats.
The 52-page filing explains in detail arguments Trump first raised in a letter to the judge last week. Merchan has already delayed the former president’s sentencing to Sept. 18 from this week to allow time to consider his request.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case last year and won the first conviction of a former US president, has until July 24 to respond to Trump’s motion. It’s unclear if Merchan will hold in-person arguments.
A Manhattan jury on May 30 found Trump guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 presidential election to keep her quiet about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier. Bragg elevated the acts to felonies from misdemeanors by proving Trump falsified the records in furtherance of election crimes. Trump denied any illegal conduct as well as the encounter.
Tainted Verdict?
The Supreme Court’s immunity decision stems from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s separate criminal case against Trump over his attempt to overturn the result of the 2020 election. The 6-3 decision along ideological lines held that a former president cannot be charged over acts related to their “core” powers under the Constitution and that they enjoy at least the presumption of immunity for act within the “outer perimeter” of a president’s “discretionary authority.”
Trump argues the hush money verdict was tainted by extensive evidence related to his official duties, including social media posts and public statements about the scandal that he issued from the White House. He also says jurors shouldn’t have heard testimony by former White House aides Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout about his alleged motive as the scandal was unfolding.
The Supreme Court decision “forecloses inquiry into those motives” and “places this evidence squarely within the category of official acts committed to the unreviewable discretion of the President,” Blanche said in the filing.
Trump also argues that jurors shouldn’t have seen his response to Federal Election Commission complaints or his disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics, both of which related to the hush money scandal that evolved during Trump’s first year in the White House. Those records, he says, were part of his official duties.
Timing of Conduct
In their response later this month, prosecutors will likely argue Trump’s conduct took place before he took office and supports the verdict. They say the scheme was launched during a 2015 meeting between Trump and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, who agreed to buy and bury salacious news about Trump’s conduct with women to improve his chances of winning the election.
It’s unclear if Trump will succeed in his bid to overturn his New York conviction. Merchan and another judge have already rejected his immunity claims in the hush money case, although both decisions were made before the Supreme Court’s ruling. A Manhattan appeals court has already upheld Merchan’s decision.
If Trump’s effort fails, his Sept. 18 sentencing will go ahead less than seven weeks before the November election.
With assistance from Zoe Tillman.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
