Photo credit: www.businessinsider.com
Trump Seeks Dismissal of Hush-Money Case Amid Legal Battles
On Wednesday, Donald Trump’s legal team filed a motion for the immediate dismissal of his New York hush-money case, asserting that he cannot face sentencing while serving as either president-elect or president. This development unfolds against a backdrop of ongoing legal disputes related to his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Trump’s attorneys contended that allowing the case to proceed undermines the orderly transition of power, which is vital following his anticipated victory in the upcoming 2024 Presidential election. They referenced the federal Constitution and the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 in their argument, stating that the interests of justice demand dismissal to enable a smooth transfer of executive authority.
The court filing, which spans three pages, marks a significant addition to the ongoing discourse regarding the timing and implications of Trump’s sentencing, originally scheduled for July but repeatedly delayed. In their filing, Trump’s legal team emphasized the mandate delivered by the electorate on November 5, 2024, asserting that this supersedes any political aims of the prosecution.
The motion was submitted by Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, the lead attorneys on the hush-money case, who have strong ties to Trump’s administration plans. Their call for dismissal came shortly after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicated that he would oppose any dismissal efforts, regardless of Trump’s electoral status. Bragg acknowledged the complexities surrounding the presidency’s legal obligations but underscored the fundamental role of the judicial system in addressing such cases.
The prosecution argued that regardless of Trump’s presidential status, a sentencing could occur post-inauguration, maintaining that the jury’s decision must be respected. This contention has led Trump’s defense to assert that a single prosecutor should not hold the power to interfere with a president’s constitutional responsibilities.
In their response, Trump’s lawyers cited a 2000 Department of Justice memorandum that delineates protections for sitting presidents, although the memo does not explicitly clarify whether this immunity applies to presidents-elect.
The defense is seeking approval from New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to submit a more detailed brief by December 20, which is crucial as it falls just before the inauguration. Bragg has requested that all motions regarding the dismissal be finalized by December 9, indicating differing timelines between the two sides.
In May, a Manhattan jury found that Trump had conspired to conceal payment records linked to a $130,000 settlement with pornographic actress Stormy Daniels, made shortly before the 2016 elections. The potential penalties for Trump could range widely, from no jail time to four years in prison, although experts suggest it is improbable that a first-time, non-violent offender in their seventies would receive a prison sentence. Most likely, any imposed sentence would be paused during the appeals process.
Since Trump’s guilt was established six months ago, the case has faced numerous delays primarily due to his presidential campaign and recent Supreme Court rulings concerning presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.
As of now, the judge has not responded to Trump’s latest dismissal request. Last week, the judge imposed a freeze on all pre-sentencing deadlines, including a scheduled sentencing session on November 26, to allow time for judicial considerations regarding the dismissal motions.
Source
www.businessinsider.com