Photo credit: www.cbsnews.com

Trump’s Attorneys Respond to Unusual Prosecutorial Suggestion in Hush Money Case

President-elect Donald Trump’s legal team has recently condemned a proposition made by Manhattan prosecutors regarding the handling of his ongoing “hush money” case. On Friday, the attorneys challenged the idea that a judge should contemplate an option typically reserved for situations where a defendant passes away before sentencing.

Earlier in the week, prosecutors had indicated that Justice Juan Merchan might consider closing Trump’s criminal case without vacating the jury verdict or dismissing the indictment. They characterized this suggestion as a “novel” approach to managing a unique situation—an ongoing case interrupted by a defendant’s ascension to the presidency following a conviction.

In their response, Trump’s attorneys, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, characterized the prosecutor’s proposition as “unhinged” and “extremely troubling.” They drew a stark contrast between President Trump, who has famously survived attempted assassinations, and a hypothetical deceased defendant, arguing that equating the two is irresponsible.

The case has gained significant attention as Trump seeks to influence the court’s upcoming decision while also navigating the complexities of his position as the incoming president. Trump was found guilty in May, but his sentencing has been delayed, coinciding with his recent election to the highest office in the country.

Trump is set to take his place back in the White House on January 20. Meanwhile, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office maintains that the democratic process should not invalidate the jury’s decision regarding Trump’s guilt on multiple felony charges.

Trump’s legal representatives contend that constitutional protections should invalidate the conviction, asserting that presidential immunity must be honored, and that the indictment should be dismissed due to his election outcome. “The federal Constitution, which guarantees presidential immunity, is the supreme law,” his attorneys stated in their filing.

Prosecutors, however, counter that the immunity argument does not hold at this point, contending that because Trump has yet to assume office, “President-elect immunity does not exist,” and they urged Justice Merchan to make a prompt ruling before Trump’s inauguration.

The jury’s verdict rendered in May marked a historic moment as it made Trump the first former president to be convicted of crimes, specifically on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Following his election on November 5, Trump became the first individual with a criminal record in U.S. history to ascend to the presidency.

Despite the conviction, Trump has maintained his innocence and has pledged to appeal if the case is not dismissed outright.

Trump Investigations

As the situation unfolds, the impact of these legal challenges on Trump’s presidency remains to be seen, alongside the broader implications for accountability and the role of the judiciary in the face of presidential authority.

Source
www.cbsnews.com