President-elect Donald Trump’s effort to overturn his conviction in a New York case was denied by a judge on Friday.
President-elect Trump remains convicted in the New York criminal hush money case as the judge dismisses claims of presidential immunity, Fox News reported.
Judge Juan Merchan dismissed Trump's plea to overturn his conviction based on presidential immunity in the New York criminal hush money case. Trump's legal team argued that the charges were politically motivated and violated constitutional protections of presidential immunity.
The reaction from Trump’s legal entourage came swiftly after Judge Merchan's decision. They contended that the judge overlooked the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, which they believe should result in an annulment of the conviction. Trump's legal team maintains that the charges disrupt the transition process of the presidency.
The court has scheduled Trump’s sentencing for January 10 at 9:30 a.m. Although Judge Merchan ruled out imprisonment, he stated that an "unconditional discharge" would be appropriate, meaning Trump would face no penalties following the conviction.
Despite this, Judge Merchan continues to evaluate other motions from Trump's defense seeking to dismiss the case entirely. The court found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records after a six-week trial.
The case involves alleged hush money payments that came under investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Cyrus Vance, former Manhattan District Attorney, was the one who initially launched the investigation, and Alvin Bragg took on the prosecution responsibilities.
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump, has been vocal about the case, describing it as a “witch hunt” and a violation of legal precedents. Cheung insists that the charges are undermining the presidential transition and should never have been filed.
Today’s order by the deeply conflicted, Acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s Immunity decision and other longstanding jurisprudence. This lawless case should have never been brought and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed.
The court proceedings revealed arguments that Trump’s acts of falsifying business records were unofficial and therefore not covered by the immunity typically granted to presidential office activities. Trump and his team continue to plead not guilty to these charges.
In July, Trump’s attorneys moved for dismissal citing the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding immunity on official acts. Their stance has been that, due to constitutional protections, the charges infringe on what should be protection from legal battles for a former president.
Alvin Bragg had suggested postponing proceedings until after Trump's second term, if applicable, though this was met with resistance from Trump's legal side. They opposed it, referencing Department of Justice guidelines.
The confrontation between prosecutors and Trump’s legal team has raised significant questions about the role of presidential immunity, especially when related to actions outside the official duties of office. Moreover, it underscores the broader debate about the boundaries of such immunity in legal contexts.
Consequently, President-elect Donald Trump’s request to vacate his conviction in the New York criminal hush money case failed, reaffirming the conviction after the court’s decision. Judge Juan Merchan ruled that the acts in question fell outside the realm of presidential immunity. As a result, the ruling stages the path to an eventful sentencing process, with provisions made for viewing outcomes virtually or in person.
Meanwhile, the disputing parties remain divided on the case's political implications, as Trump's legal representatives argue the obstructions infringe on vital presidential duties. Even though Merchan indicated no incarceration, the echoes of this case will continue to challenge interpretations of presidential immunity and its application.
