In a recent ruling, a judge in Manhattan refused to dismiss President-elect Donald Trump’s conviction for hush money payments, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity. The future of the case remains uncertain as Trump’s return to office approaches next month. While the judge’s decision blocks one potential exit from the case, Trump’s lawyers are pursuing other arguments for dismissal. It is unclear when or if a sentencing date will be set.
Prosecutors have argued that there should be some consideration for Trump’s upcoming presidency, but they maintain that the conviction should stand. Trump was convicted in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies any wrongdoing, claiming the payment was aimed at preventing Daniels from making public allegations of a past sexual encounter.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that ex-presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts, Trump’s lawyers argued that the jury in the hush money case was presented with improper evidence, including Trump’s financial disclosure form, testimony from White House aides, and social media posts made during his time in office. However, the judge rejected most of these claims, stating that the evidence of Trump’s guilt was overwhelming.
The judge emphasized that not all of Trump’s actions are considered official, noting that his social media posts were personal in nature. Additionally, a prior court ruling determined that the hush money payment and reimbursements were related to Trump’s private life, rather than his official duties.
Trump, who is set to take office on January 20, will be the first former president to be convicted of a felony and the first individual with a criminal conviction to be elected to the presidency. Despite Trump’s team’s efforts to dismiss the conviction, the case continues to unfold as his inauguration draws near.
The case was dismissed. Following Trump’s victory in last month’s election, Merchan took the decision to indefinitely postpone his sentencing, which had previously been set for late November. This was done to allow both defense attorneys and prosecutors to propose their suggestions for the next course of action.Trump’s defense team argued vehemently that anything less than an immediate dismissal of the case would be tantamount to undermining the peaceful transfer of power and could potentially lead to unconstitutional disruptions in the functioning of the presidency. On the other hand, the prosecutors put forward several alternative strategies to ensure that the historic conviction would be upheld. These proposed solutions included freezing the case until Trump’s anticipated departure from office in 2029, reaching an agreement that any forthcoming sentencing would not involve jail time, or officially closing the case by acknowledging the conviction without carrying out the sentencing, pointing out that the appeal process was left unresolved due to Trump assuming office. This particular suggestion was inspired by the practices followed by some states when a defendant passes away after being convicted but before the sentencing is finalized.Trump’s legal team swiftly labeled the proposed idea as “absurd” and also raised objections to the other alternatives that were presented. Trump found himself indicted a total of four times in the previous year. Among these cases, the trial related to the hush money issue was the only one that ultimately proceeded to court proceedings.Following the election outcome, special counsel Jack Smith brought an end to his two federal cases, which focused on Trump’s efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election and the accusations of him withholding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. Meanwhile, a separate case concerning alleged election interference in Fulton County, Georgia, largely remains in a state of suspension.Trump has consistently maintained his denial of any wrongdoing in all of the aforementioned matters.
