On Monday, a Manhattan judge denied President-elect Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss his hush money conviction, rejecting arguments that the US Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling should invalidate the case. The ruling, however, left the case’s long-term future uncertain as Trump’s lawyers pursue other avenues for dismissal.
Highlights from Trump’s defense
Trump's legal team argued that evidence used in his family, such as financial disclosures and testimony from White House aides, related to his official conduct as president and should be protected under the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. The ruling asserts that ex-presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken during their official duties, nor can such acts bolster cases involving personal conduct.
Judge Juan M. Merchan, however, disagreed. He ruled that even if some of the evidence mentioned government action, it posed no risk of a separation of powers, stressing that falsifying business records was "a private act." Marchan added that any possible misuse of evidence was “harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt”.
Background to Hush Money
Trump was convicted in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a USD 130,000 payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Prosecutors said the payments were made to suppress information she is rumoured to be on the edge of her relationship with Trump, which she denies. The payment was allegedly concealed to protect Trump's campaign image.
Prosecutors and defense at odds over evidence
While Trump’s lawyers claimed that certain evidence was improperly admitted under the immunity protections, prosecutors countered that such evidence was only a minor part of the case. They maintained that Trump’s conviction should stand, though they acknowledged that accommodations might be needed for his presidency, set to begin on Jan. 20.
Trump team calls ruling a “violation of Supreme Court decision”
Steven Cheung, Trump’s communications director, denounced the decision as a “direct violation” of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, calling the case “lawless” and unconstitutional.
“This case should never have been brought, and the Constitution demands its immediate dismissal,” Cheung said in a statement.
Prosecution silent on next steps
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted the case, declined to comment on the ruling or its potential implications.
What’s next for Trump?
With Trump’s return to office looming, his legal team continues to explore alternative arguments for dismissal. If no further relief is granted, the case could remain a legal and political challenge throughout his upcoming presidency.
Also read | US: Five dead, six injured after teenage opens fire at Wisconsin school
