Trump’s Immunity Claim Fails to End New York Hush Money Case
(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump failed to convince a judge to throw out his conviction in the New York hush money case on presidential immunity grounds, but the case is far from over as the president-elect continues to press other challenges to the verdict.
Most Read from Bloomberg
Justice Juan Merchan on Monday rejected Trump’s argument that the trial was tainted by evidence that wouldn’t have been allowed under a July US Supreme Court decision that gives presidents broad immunity from criminal charges. Merchan must still rule on additional requests Trump has made to toss the case because it would interfere with his ability to govern.
Subscribe to the Bloomberg Daybreak podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere you listen.
Merchan said in Monday’s ruling that Trump failed to raise his immunity argument in a timely fashion and didn’t object to the use of certain evidence stemming from his time in the White House — such as testimony from former aide Hope Hicks — until the first day of trial on April 15. But he also ruled that even that testimony wasn’t subject to the Supreme Court ruling.
A Manhattan jury in May found Trump guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former adult-film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. The verdict on 34 felony counts made Trump the first former president to be convicted of a crime.
Prosecutors used evidence to prove “decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records” and that posed “no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch,” Merchan said.
The judge said that any possible error in admitting evidence was harmless, in that it would not have changed the “overwhelming evidence of guilt” against Trump. Merchan also rejected arguments from the Trump team that the Supreme Court decision took the case out of his hands and blocked his authority to rule on it.
Trump called the ruling “illegal” and “psychotic” and said in a social media post that Merchan had “little respect for the Constitution.”
“Acting Justice Juan Merchan has completely disrespected the United States Supreme Court, and its Historic Decision on Immunity,” Trump said. “But even without Immunity, this illegitimate case is nothing but a Rigged Hoax.”
Trump, 78, faces as long as four years behind bars, though many experts have predicted — even before the election — that he would likely get far less time than that or even just probation. The case is the only one of four criminal prosecutions to go to trial but also bogged Trump down during his campaign.
Even so, Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case was immediately placed in doubt when he won the Nov. 5 contest against his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.
Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court held in July that former presidents are largely immune from charges over conduct that falls within their official duties in office. The hush money case was focused on Trump’s conduct before he was in office — a scheme to keep tabloid stories from being published — but his lawyers argued the immunity ruling nevertheless had an impact.
“The criminal charges here stem from the private acts of the defendant made prior to taking the office of the president,” the judge wrote Monday.
Merchan said any conversations Trump had with Hicks while she was White House communications director about Daniels was “about personal matters involving an alleged affair and a sexual encounter that occurred prior” to his becoming president. The judge added that these matters are “not ‘the greatest public interests’ the Supreme Court contemplated when it wrestled with a president’s ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the duties of his office.” Trump denies the encounter ever took place.
Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche on Tuesday released a heavily-redacted Dec. 3 letter in which he claimed his team has “evidence of grave juror misconduct” during the trial which was “yet another reason that the verdict to this case cannot and should not stand.” Blanche said the alleged wrongdoing was evidence “this case was not anywhere near fair and impartial.”
Merchan said in his rulings on Monday that these were “unsworn allegations” and didn’t say if he conducted any further inquiries into Trump’s claims.
Justice Department
Separately, the Justice Department ended its two criminal cases against Trump on Nov. 25, citing a department policy that states the indictment or prosecution of a sitting president would “unconstitutionally undermine” their ability to serve in office. That’s similar to the remaining challenge in the New York case that Merchan is yet to rule on.
New York prosecutors have asked, in light of the election results, that Merchan delay sentencing in the criminal case until after Trump’s term in office ends in 2029. Meanwhile, a Georgia state case accusing the president of election interference has stalled amid Trump’s challenges.
Merchan doesn’t have the final word as Trump can appeal his decisions to a midlevel state appeals court in Manhattan, and then up to the New York State Court of Appeals.
Even if Trump loses in New York, he could ask the US Supreme Court to review the case.
--With assistance from Erik Larson.
(Adds Trump comment in seventh and eighth paragraphs.)
Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek
The Property Brothers Say Hold Off on the Big Home Renovation in 2025
China’s Housing Rescue Falls Short in City That Signaled the Crisis
Desperate Nursing Students Turn to Fixers for Their Clinical Training
©2024 Bloomberg L.P.
