Manhattan DA tells judge to reject Trump’s attempt to toss his hush money verdict after ‘immunity’ ruling
Supreme Court’s ruling does not apply to Trump’s ‘wholly unofficial conduct’ in covering up Stormy Daniels payments, DA Alvin Bragg’s office says
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Manhattan prosecutors are urging Donald Trump’s criminal hush money judge to keep a 34-count verdict after the former president argued the case should be tossed following the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential “immunity.”
Prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office argue that nothing about the case involves “official” presidential acts that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has argued are “absolutely” immune from prosecution.
A jury found Trump guilty of illegally covering up payments to his former attorney Michael Cohen, who paid off adult film star Stormy Daniels to prevent her from publicly sharing her story about having sex with Trump in 2006.
Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
Hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump’s attorneys argued that the case should be thrown out and that the verdict should be overturned because certain evidence used to convict him should have been off limits to prosecutors.
Prosecutors argue the case involves “wholly unofficial conduct or, at most, official conduct for which any presumption of immunity has been rebutted.”
But even if the Supreme Court’s ruling excluded that evidence, “there would still need be no basis for disturbing the verdict because of the other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt,” prosecutors wrote Thursday.
“The evidence that he claims is affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling constitutes only a sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof that the jury considered in finding him guilty of all 34 felony charges beyond a reasonable doubt,” they added. “Under these circumstances, there is no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict, and defendant’s motion should be denied.”
Trump has argued that “impermissible” evidence includes Trump’s conversations with White House aides who testified at the trial, phone records from his time in office, and posts on Twitter, which was “recognized as a formal channel of White House communication in the Trump Administration,” according to Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche.
Prosecutors said the Supreme Court’s decision has no bearing on the hush money case “because, as defendant does not dispute, the charges in this case all involve purely personal conduct, rather than official presidential acts.”
Four of Trump’s tweets targeting Cohen, for example, were “all issued in defendant’s unofficial capacity,” prosecutors wrote.
“The challenged Tweets bear no resemblance to the kinds of public comments that the Supreme Court indicated would qualify as official presidential conduct,” according to prosecutors.
Testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks also doesn’t apply to the “immunity” ruling, because “the only testimony elicited by the People concerned discussions between defendant and Hicks about the hush-money scheme that was then being reported in the press,” according to prosecutors, adding that “there is no danger that consideration of this testimony would interfere with the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
Additional testimony from another White House aide, Madeleine Westerhout, was merely “general descriptions” about Trump’s “private affairs” — none of which had “anything to do” with official acts as president.
Prosecutors also argued that an Office of Government Ethics form that was admitted into evidence is a “quintessential” public record that is not subject to presidential “immunity.”
Even if the trial admitted evidence that could be considered off-limits, “harmless error cannot be a basis for setting aside a verdict,” according to prosecutors.
“Defendant is wrong to claim that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling compels the conclusion that any admission of purportedly official acts is automatically prejudicial,” they added.
Trump’s challenge is a long shot, but “it’s definitely not frivolous,” former Manhattan prosecutor Karen Agnifilo told The Independent.
“The Supreme Court has really gutted a lot of the charges against him throughout the various cases, but this particular case is probably the safest,” she said.
While some of the evidence could be considered “at risk,” the verdict is likely to stay intact, Agnifilo said.
As a result of Trump’s motions, Merchan postponed Trump’s sentencing to September 18 — “if such is still necessary,” he wrote earlier this month. The judge is set to issue a decision on Trump’s arguments on September 6.