Current News

/

ArcaMax

Experts weigh impact of Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision on Donald Trump's hush money conviction

Josephine Stratman, New York Daily News on

Published in News & Features

NEW YORK — The Supreme Court’s Monday decision on Donald Trump’s legal immunity boosted his defenses in the ongoing criminal cases against him — and raised questions about whether the recent conviction in his Manhattan hush money trial will be impacted.

Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an attempt to cover up a conspiracy to win the 2016 election. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s historic case marked the first time a former U.S. president ever faced a criminal trial.

The Supreme Court’s decision provided Trump expanded immunity from prosecution for official acts he committed as president. It is expected to delay his trial in Washington, D.C., where he was charged with illegally attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

So, can Trump use the presidential immunity expanded by the Supreme Court on Monday to challenge his conviction in the hush money case?

The short answer is no, according to legal experts.

The underlying scheme to influence the results of the election took place in the lead-up to the election, before he was president, noted attorney Ron Kuby. Plus, the repayments to Michael Cohen for paying off porn star Stormy Daniels were a “classic” example of unofficial acts.

 

“Bragg from the beginning designed this case to avoid all of the questions about presidential power and presidential authority,” Kuby said of the DA and his case. “Everything Trump did that was criminal he did, one, before he was elected and, two, has no official immunity.”

The Supreme Court ruled Trump and other presidents are criminally immune for official acts taken within the official duties of the job.

During the Manhattan trial, Trump’s lawyers argued that his payments to Cohen were personal payments made to his attorney.

Lawyer Todd Blanche argued during summations that Trump was simply “paying his personal attorney” pursuant to an agreement they made — not repaying him for the hush money.

...continued

swipe to next page

©2024 New York Daily News. Visit nydailynews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus