Major Update Emerges Right Before Trump’s Sentencing on Nov. 26

Advertisement

Subscribe for free to eliminate ads

Disclaimer: The article may include the author's opinions.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office and Donald Trump’s legal team have decided to postpone the hush money lawsuit until November 19. Both sides will be able to make fresh arguments about how Trump’s election win impacts the issue thanks to this delay.

Judge Merchan was scheduled to rule on the legitimacy of the corporate fraud conviction on Tuesday but both parties consented to a delay motion in consideration of the exceptional circumstances. Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the arguments made by Trump’s defense team must be carefully considered in light of the competing demands of sustaining the jury’s guilty verdict and respecting the President’s Office.

Trump’s attorney, Emil Bove, argued that the charges should be dismissed entirely. Bove stated that the stay, and dismissal, are necessary to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.

The case has been influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s June ruling, which granted Trump broad protection for official acts during his presidency. Trump is now seeking to overturn his convictions related to 34 counts of falsifying business records, leveraging this decision to delay his punishment. The Supreme Court ruling has also placed Trump’s federal election subversion case on hold indefinitely, as Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently in discussions with the Justice Department about ending Trump’s federal cases.

Trump’s legal team contends that the district attorney’s office improperly used evidence from Trump’s time in office, which should not have been admitted. They argue that the Manhattan DA violated the Presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause by relying on official acts from Trump’s presidency, including actions from 2017 and 2018, in a case that concerns business records. The defense asserts that much of the evidence involved actions taken under core executive powers, which are protected by absolute immunity.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, maintains that Trump should be found guilty, citing overwhelming evidence presented at trial. Prosecutors argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity does not apply in this case because the crimes Trump was convicted of such as altering business records to influence the 2016 election are not official acts of his presidency.

In court filings, Trump’s lawyers insisted that the jury should not have heard evidence from White House staffers like Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout or seen tweets from Trump’s official social media accounts. They claimed that the Supreme Court decision specifically prohibits the use of testimony from presidential advisors to probe official acts.

In addition, Trump’s legal team contended that his official presidential Twitter account—which he utilized for communications—should not have been introduced as evidence in the case, especially messages from 2018 in which he disputed the Stormy Daniels hush money plan. Prosecutors countered, stating that Trump’s lawyers did not object to most of the evidence during the trial and should not be allowed to challenge it now after the trial has concluded.

Share the article to spread the truth

Subscribe for free to eliminate ads