The legal battle surrounding President-elect Donald Trump over past hush money payments intensifies.
According to AP News, Trump's legal representatives are pushing for a dismissal of his conviction, challenging proposals from Manhattan's DA that seek to preserve it during his term.
Trump's lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, are advocating strongly against the Manhattan District Attorney’s office's approach, which includes suggestions such as pausing the legal actions until Trump concludes his presidency in 2029. Another approach proposed assures that Trump would avoid imprisonment, while an unprecedented suggestion considers treating the case as if Trump had deceased, given his recent survival of several assassination attempts.
The ideas put forth by the district attorney are unlike any previous cases, especially the proposition to handle Trump's case similarly to those involving deceased defendants. This comes after assassinations were foiled in Pennsylvania and Florida, raising security concerns.
These legal strategies have been labeled by Trump's legal team as not only unconventional but unconstitutional. They argue that such measures would wrongly interfere with Trump’s presidential responsibilities and duties. The heart of the dispute lies in a conviction from May 30, where Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Trump has consistently denied wrongdoings connected to these allegations.
Although the court scheduled sentencing for late November, Trump postponed it after he secured victory in the presidential race on November 5th. The principle of presidential immunity plays a role here, based on a longstanding policy from the Justice Department that prevents the criminal prosecution of a sitting president.
The district attorney's office concedes that they must make special considerations regarding this immunity, reflecting the complexity of prosecuting a soon-to-be sitting president.
Indeed, the legal predicaments for Trump extend beyond this case; he has been at the center of other major investigations. Notably, special counsel Jack Smith recently concluded two federal cases against him, and a significant election interference case in Fulton County, Georgia remains mostly stalled.
Senator John Fetterman has voiced concerns about the broader implications of such legal maneuvers, stating, "Weaponizing the judiciary for blatant, partisan gain diminishes the collective faith in our institutions and sows further division."
Judge Juan M. Merchan, presiding over this matter, has yet to decide on the proposals from the district attorney’s office. The delay adds a layer of uncertainty to an already complicated legal landscape for Trump.
This situation unfolds while Trump’s attorneys continue to fight vigorously for the dismissal of all charges and the conviction. In their filings, they highlight: To be clear, President Trump will never deviate from the public interest in response to these thuggish tactics. However, the threat itself is unconstitutional.
The astounding assertion by Trump's lawyers that treating the legal case as if Trump had died post-assassination attempts is dismissible shows the tense and unprecedented nature of the legal discussions. "The idea is absurd," they said, and it would be like pretending "one of the assassination attempts against President Trump had been successful."
As this legal drama continues to unfold, all eyes are on how it will impact Trump's next term, the judiciary's standing, and the political climate as a whole. The legal strategies employed now could set precedents for how the judiciary system treats future presidents, making this case one to watch closely.
