NEW YORK – Donald Trump turned his criminal conviction into a rallying cry. His supporters put “Vote Criminal” on T-shirts, hats and lawn signs.
“The real verdict will be given by the people on November 5,” Trump announced after his conviction in New York last spring on 34 counts of concealing business records.
Now, just one week after Trump’s resounding victory in the election, a Manhattan judge is about to decide whether to uphold the surreptitious money decision or throw it out because of a High decision -a US court in July that granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution.
Judge Juan M. Merchan has said he will issue a written opinion Tuesday on Trump’s request to vacate his conviction and order a new trial or dismiss the conviction entirely.
Merchán was expected to speak out in September, but postponed it “to avoid any appearance” that he was trying to influence the election. His decision could be frozen again if Trump takes other steps to delay or end the case.
If the judge upholds the decision, the case would be on the way to sentencing on November 26 – although that could change or disappear depending on appeals or other legal movements.
Trump’s lawyers have been fighting for months to overturn his conviction, which included efforts to conceal a $130,000 payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels , whose allegations in the case threatened to derail his 2016 campaign.
Trump denies the allegation, insisting he did nothing wrong and has called the decision a “disgusting and disgraceful” result of a “witch hunt” with political motivation aimed at damaging his campaign.
The Supreme Court decision gives former presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts – things they do as part of their job as president – and prohibits prosecutors from using evidence of official acts to try to prove that only personal conduct broke the law.
Trump was a private citizen — he was campaigning for president, but had not been elected or sworn into office — when his lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid Daniels in October 2016.
But Trump was president when Cohen received the refund, and Cohen testified that they discussed the refund agreement in the Oval Office. Those payments, jurors found, were falsely recorded in Trump’s records as legal expenses.
Trump’s lawyers allege that the Manhattan prosecutor’s office “tainted” the case with evidence – including evidence about Trump’s first term as president – that should not have been is allowed.
Prosecutors contend that the high court’s decision provides “no basis to disturb the jury’s verdict.” Trump’s conviction, they said, including unofficial acts – personal conduct for which he is not immune.
The Supreme Court did not define official action, leaving that to lower courts. He also did not make clear how his ruling — which arose out of one of Trump’s two federal criminal cases — refers to state-level matters such as Trump’s surreptitious money allegation.
“There are several confusing aspects of the court’s ruling, but one that is particularly relevant to this case is the question of what counts as an official act,” George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin said. I think it is very difficult to argue that this payment to this woman qualifies as an official act, for several very obvious reasons.
Trump’s efforts to overturn the decision have taken on new urgency since his election, with a sentencing date looming at the end of the month and possible penalties ranging from fines or probation to up to four a year in prison.
Electors typically don’t have the same legal protections as presidents, but Trump and his lawyers could try to use his special status as vice president and future president to -into a “Get Out of Jail Free” type of card.
One plausible argument: Trump would not only be saving himself from a possible prison sentence, but he would be sparing the country from the necessity of having its leader behind bars, no matter how long. remote as it would be.
“He will be asking every court in the world to intervene if he can, including the Supreme Court, so that might drag things out a little bit,” said senior Syracuse University law professor David Driesen, author of the book “The Specter of Dictatorship.” “”Judicial authorization of presidential power.”
At the same time, Trump has been trying to move the case back from state court to federal court, where he could also prove his immunity. His lawyers have asked the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a judge’s decision in September that refused to cancel the transfer.
If Merchan orders a new trial, it is very likely that it could happen while Trump is in office.
Trump’s lawyers argued in court papers that, given the Supreme Court’s decision, jurors should not be allowed to hear such matters as his conversations with then-White House communications director Hope Hicks. or another assistant’s testimony about his work habits.
Prosecutors were also barred, they said, from using Trump’s 2018 financial disclosure report, which he was required to file as president. A footnote mentioned that Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for unspecified expenses from the previous year.
Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, argued that prosecutors were trying to “assign a criminal motive” to some of Trump’s actions in office to “unfairly harm him”. For example, they wrote, prosecutors pushed the “suspicious theory” that some of Trump’s tweets in 2018 were part of a “pressure campaign” to prevent Cohen from turning it over.
The immunity decision “prevents an examination of these reasons,” Blanche and Bove wrote.
Prosecutors objected that the verdict does not relate to that evidence and, despite this, that the jury considered “just a sliver of the mountains of evidence and anecdotal evidence”.
2024-11-11 15:10:00
#Judge #decide #Trumps #secret #money #case #Telemundo #York
