Judge Dismisses Trump’s Bid to Overturn Hush Money Conviction, Citing No Presidential Immunity

A New York judge has upheld the conviction of President-elect Donald Trump regarding hush money payments, dismissing Trump’s claims of immunity based on a recent Supreme Court ruling. On Monday, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan determined that the evidence presented by Manhattan prosecutors pertained to unofficial conduct, not linked to Trump’s presidential duties.

Justice Merchan articulated in his 41-page ruling that the alleged actions lacked the protections typically afforded to a sitting president. Earlier, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records, asserting these were efforts to suppress negative publicity during his 2016 campaign.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling granting absolute immunity for former presidents concerning official acts, Trump claimed the evidence should have been excluded from the trial, suggesting it related to his presidential responsibilities. He referenced testimony from Hope Hicks, a former aide, and statements he made over social media during his presidency.

However, Merchan rejected these assertions, stating that the evidence presented did not intrude upon the executive branch’s authority. He further noted that any mistake in including that evidence would have been insignificant considering the overwhelming evidence of Trump’s guilt.

Trump’s Communications Director, Steven Cheung, criticized the ruling, claiming it violated Supreme Court precedents on immunity. Trump’s defense attorney, Todd Blanche, did not respond to inquiries regarding the impact of this decision.

Additionally, Justice Merchan mentioned in a letter to both parties that new sealed allegations from Trump’s legal team about juror misconduct had arisen. While he did not provide specifics, he indicated that more information would be issued publicly soon.

This latest ruling challenges one of several defense strategies employed by Trump to overturn his verdict. After winning the presidential election in November, his legal team filed yet another motion to dismiss the case, citing presidential immunity and arguing that ongoing prosecution could impede his potential return to the White House. The judge has yet to decide on this motion.

Despite facing a guilty verdict in May, Trump has delayed sentencing proceedings through arguments regarding presidential immunity. Currently, his sentencing remains indefinitely postponed, raising questions about whether he will face judgment before his inauguration on January 20, 2025.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has suggested the possibility of deferring Trump’s sentencing throughout his subsequent presidential term, or even terminating it entirely to preserve the jury’s historical verdict. Notably, Trump marks a significant moment in U.S. history as the first president, either current or former, to be charged with or found guilty of a crime.