NY Judge Rejects Trump's Immunity Defense

Improve the News Foundation -

Facts

  • Judge Juan Merchan on Monday denied US Pres.-elect Donald Trump's attempt to dismiss his New York business fraud conviction based on presidential immunity, ruling that the evidence presented related "entirely to unofficial conduct."[1][2]
  • Trump's lawyers argue this case should be dropped because the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled earlier this year that presidents have immunity for official acts. But prosecutors claim that dismissing a jury's conviction altogether would be an "extreme remedy."[1][3]
  • In May, a jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records related to a $130K payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election.[4]
  • The case involved Trump reimbursing Michael Cohen, his former attorney, who made the payment to Daniels days before the 2016 presidential election to maintain her silence about an alleged sexual encounter. Trump denies all charges and the affair.[2]
  • Trump's sentencing has been postponed following his November 2024 presidential election victory, with prosecutors agreeing not to sentence him while in office.[1][5]
  • In addition, Merchan disclosed that Trump's defense team recently alleged juror misconduct, though no formal motion has been filed to dismiss the conviction on these grounds.[6]

Sources: [1]CNN, [2]CBS, [3]FOX News, [4]Al Jazeera, [5]New York Post and [6]USA Today.

Narratives

  • Republican narrative, as provided by PJ Media and Breitbart. This ruling by a politically partisan judge continues the ongoing violation of Trump's civil rights and is in direct opposition to SCOTUS' ruling on presidential immunity. Much of the evidence submitted — including testimony from White House staffers and presidential social media posts — were part of Trump's official duties. This witch hunt must end and the charges should be dismissed.
  • Democratic narrative, as provided by The New Republic and The Guardian. Not only did the evidence presented at trial pertain entirely to unofficial conduct, much of what Trump was charged for happened well before he was elected. Even if some evidence related to official acts was considered by the jury, its impact on their decision would've been negligible compared to the overwhelming weight of evidence pointing to his guilt in the case.