In a high-stakes legal battle, prosecutors are urging a judge to uphold the historic hush money conviction of former President Donald Trump, arguing that the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity has no bearing on this case. The Manhattan district attorney's office contends that the verdict should stand, as the evidence presented at trial focused on Trump's personal conduct, not his official acts as president.
Prosecutors Adamant: Verdict Must Stand Despite Trump's Immunity Claims
Prosecutors Refute Trump's Immunity Claims
In a comprehensive 66-page filing, prosecutors have asserted that the Supreme Court's ruling "has no bearing" on the hush money case, as it involved evidence of Trump's personal conduct, not his official acts. They argue that there is "no basis for disturbing the jury's verdict," which found the former president guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a deal to pay off adult film star Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.Trump's legal team has sought to overturn the verdict and dismiss the indictment, citing the Supreme Court's recent decision that curbs prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence of illegal unofficial actions. However, prosecutors have countered that the Supreme Court ruling does not apply to the evidence presented in this case, which they describe as a "sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof" that the jury considered before reaching its verdict.
Prosecutors Defend Admissibility of Evidence
Prosecutors have also addressed Trump's claims that the trial was "tainted" by evidence that should not have been allowed under the Supreme Court's ruling, such as testimony from some Trump White House staffers and tweets he sent while president in 2018. They argue that the aides' testimony concerned Trump's personal matters or described his work practices so generally that immunity does not apply, and that the financial disclosure form fell within allowances for using public records.As for Trump's tweets, prosecutors maintain that they were not official acts, but rather "conveying his personal opinion about his private attorney" and do not bear any relationship to the president's official duties. They contend that the Supreme Court's ruling does not preclude the use of such evidence in the hush money case.
Prosecutors Emphasize Overwhelming Evidence
Prosecutors have emphasized that the Supreme Court's ruling is "only a sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof" that the jury considered before reaching its verdict on May 30. They argue that the overwhelming evidence presented at trial, including the testimony and documentary evidence, supports the jury's finding of guilt, and that there is no basis for overturning the verdict.The prosecutors' filing comes as Trump's lawyers have requested permission to file a 30-page response to the prosecution's arguments, citing "several legal and factual misrepresentations" in the filing. The judge presiding over the case, Juan M. Merchan, is expected to rule on Trump's request to overturn the verdict and dismiss the indictment on September 6.
