In a move that underscores the complex legal landscape surrounding President-elect Donald Trump, New York Judge Juan Merchan on Tuesday agreed to delay any decision on overturning Trump's conviction in the hush money case. This comes as the Manhattan District Attorney's office and Trump's attorneys deliberate over how the former president's re-election impacts his legal standing.
The pause in proceedings, which extends until November 19, follows a series of legal maneuvers that have marked Trump's return to political prominence. Trump's defense team, led by attorney Emil Bove, has been pushing to have the charges dropped entirely, arguing they infringe upon Trump's ability to govern. "The stay, and dismissal, are necessary to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump's ability to govern," Bove wrote in court filings.
Initially, Merchan was expected to rule on whether to vacate Trump's conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records. The defense has cited a Supreme Court ruling from this summer granting broad immunity to former presidents for acts deemed official. However, in light of the ongoing discussions, both parties requested additional time. Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo described the situation as "unprecedented," writing, "The people agree that these are unprecedented circumstances and the arguments raised by defense counsel... require careful consideration to ensure that any further steps in this proceeding appropriately balance... a jury verdict of guilt... and the Office of the President."
Trump was convicted in May for his involvement in a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. The payment, orchestrated by Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen, was intended to silence claims of an affair. Jurors concluded that Trump's reimbursement scheme violated state law, making him the first former U.S. president to be convicted of a crime.
Since the conviction, Trump's legal team has argued that much of the evidence presented at trial should have been excluded due to presidential immunity. This includes testimony from former White House staffers Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout. Trump's attorneys claim these communications were protected as they involved core presidential functions. "Much of the unconstitutional official-acts evidence concerned actions taken pursuant to 'core' Executive power for which 'absolute' immunity applies," they asserted in a July motion.
On the other side, the Manhattan District Attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, contends that Trump's conviction is rooted in personal conduct and not protected by presidential immunity. Prosecutors argue that falsifying business records to cover up payments tied to the 2016 election falls outside the scope of official presidential acts. "The evidence presented at trial was overwhelming," the prosecution stated in court filings, countering Trump's claims.
Another key issue in the case involves Trump's use of social media while in office. His attorneys argue that tweets denying involvement in the hush money deal, posted from his official Twitter account, should have been shielded from jurors. They claim Trump used the platform for official business, which should exempt these posts from trial scrutiny. Prosecutors, however, note that Trump's defense failed to object to this evidence during the trial, diminishing their current arguments.
The outcome of this case has broader implications, as Trump remains entangled in multiple legal challenges. Special counsel Jack Smith is reportedly negotiating with the Justice Department regarding federal cases, while the Georgia election subversion case is mired in procedural delays. Trump-appointed judges have also played roles in dismissing certain charges, further complicating the legal landscape.
