Trump’s Legal Team Seeks to Overturn Hush Money Conviction Citing Presidential Transition and Hunter Biden Pardon

Wednesday 04 December 2024 - 11:07

In a signifiant legal move, President-elect Donald Trump’s legal team has formally requested that a judge dismiss his hush money criminal conviction, claiming that continuing the case would disrupt the constitutional transition of power. In a filing submitted to Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan on Monday, Trump’s attorneys argued that allowing the case to proceed would undermine the will of the voters and hinder the smooth transition to his upcoming presidency.

The legal filing, which was made public on Tuesday, highlighted Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election, stressing that any delay or continuation of the case would undermine the "overwhelming national mandate" granted to him by the electorate. Additionally, Trump’s lawyers cited a recent pardon granted by President Joe Biden to his son, Hunter Biden, who had faced charges related to tax and gun offenses. Trump’s legal team pointed to Biden’s statement that his son was "selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted" and "treated differently," suggesting that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecution of Trump bore similar political motivations.

The filing also noted that Bragg’s actions reflected the type of "political theater" President Biden had condemned in his public remarks. Prosecutors have until December 9 to respond to the filing, but they have already indicated that they will oppose any efforts to dismiss the case, although they have suggested they might delay sentencing until after Trump’s second term concludes in 2029. Trump’s attorneys dismissed this notion, calling the delay suggestion “ridiculous.”

The case stems from Trump’s 2016 effort to suppress a sexual misconduct claim made by porn actress Stormy Daniels, which allegedly involved a $130,000 payment made to her to prevent the story from being released. Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the reimbursement of Daniels' payment. He has consistently denied any wrongdoing and maintains that the payments were properly categorized as legal expenses.

Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, who both represented him during the trial, signed the filing. The document also emphasized the broader impact of dismissing the case, claiming that doing so would allow Trump to focus his efforts on national security and tackling crime in New York City. The filing noted that clearing Trump of these charges would help address the deteriorating conditions in the city and contribute to the protection of its residents.

While Judge Merchan has yet to set a timeline for a decision, he could choose from several options, including upholding the conviction, postponing sentencing, or waiting for the outcome of federal appeals. Dismissing the case entirely would remove a major legal obstacle that has loomed over Trump’s political career.

Last week, special counsel Jack Smith withdrew two federal cases against Trump, one involving classified documents and the other centered on efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The withdrawal was based on the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy that shields sitting presidents from indictment. The hush money case, however, remains the only one of Trump’s criminal charges that has gone to trial, resulting in his historic conviction.

Prosecutors argued that the $130,000 payment made to Daniels was part of a broader scheme to suppress potentially damaging information from the public ahead of the 2016 election. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, made the initial payment to Daniels, and Trump later reimbursed him, categorizing the expense as a legal cost. Trump’s defense has maintained that the categorization was legitimate and that the payment was not meant to influence the election.

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court suggested that ex-presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions taken in their official capacity, and Trump’s legal team has cited this ruling to argue that evidence related to his presidency, including his financial disclosure and testimony from White House staff, should not have been considered in the hush money case. Prosecutors, however, have argued that such evidence was only a small part of their overall case.

If the verdict stands and the case proceeds to sentencing, Trump faces a range of potential penalties, including a fine, probation, or a prison sentence of up to four years. However, given that this is his first criminal conviction and the charges fall under the lowest tier of felonies, it is unlikely that Trump would serve jail time.

As a state case, Trump cannot pardon himself should he be convicted, even if he returns to office in 2025. The outcome of this case, along with other ongoing legal challenges, will likely have a significant impact on Trump’s future political ambitions.