In a significant legal development, former President Donald Trump has filed a 55-page motion to dismiss his conviction for falsifying business records related to hush money payments made during his presidency. This motion comes in the wake of a recent Supreme Court ruling that affirmed broad presidential immunity for official acts.
Trump’s legal team has argued that the evidence used to convict him was improperly obtained, as it was related to his actions as president. They contend that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity should invalidate his conviction, as the prosecution’s case relied on testimony and evidence tied to Trump’s official duties.
Specifically, Trump’s lawyers have highlighted the testimony of former White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, which they claim should have been excluded due to the immunity doctrine. They assert that these officials’ statements touched upon Trump’s actions as commander-in-chief, which are protected from criminal prosecution under the Supreme Court’s ruling.
- Pakistan’s mission is clear…when they were driven out of Kashmir, the terrorists made a new plan and set a new target!
- Supreme Court: Supreme Court gets two new judges, President Murmu approved the appointment, know who are these two judges
- ‘We want DGP not a fixer’, after the martyrdom of 5 soldiers in Doda, Mehbooba targets the state’s Director General of Police
- Kashmir Tigers: Who is the terrorist organization Kashmir Tigers? They took responsibility for the Doda attack, 5 soldiers martyred
- Honest thief: Heart melted after seeing the picture of the writer, returned all the goods with apology
Furthermore, Trump’s defense has accused the Manhattan District Attorney’s office of prematurely proceeding with the trial before the Supreme Court had issued its decision on presidential immunity. They argue that the case’s foundation was built on a misinterpretation of Trump’s actions as president, and that the district attorney’s office should have waited for the high court’s guidance.
In response, the district attorney’s office has rejected Trump’s claims as lacking merit but has agreed to the delay in sentencing pending the judge’s decision on the motion. Judge Juan Merchan has allowed both parties to submit additional briefs this month, with a ruling expected on September 6, potentially leading to a postponed sentencing on September 18.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity has significant implications for the Trump case, as it establishes a higher bar for the prosecution of former presidents for actions taken during their time in office. Trump’s legal team is now leveraging this decision in a bid to overturn his conviction and dismiss the case entirely.
The outcome of this motion could have far-reaching consequences, not only for Trump but also for the broader understanding of the scope of presidential immunity and the limits of criminal prosecution against former occupants of the Oval Office.