Donald Trump’s former aide Hope Hicks could be the key to bringing his effort to appeal his hush money conviction crashing down, a former federal prosecutor said.
Legal analyst Joyce Vance said evidence from Hicks presented in his trial is likely not covered by a recent Supreme Court ruling that Trump’s team is expected to rely on to overturn his conviction on falsifying business record charges.
Trump was scheduled to be sentenced Thursday, but Judge Juan Merchan agreed to delay it until September to consider the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office.
But Vance, speaking on the Cafe Insider podcast, said Hicks’ testimony, given during a tearful appearance in the witness box, would likely not be affected.
Hicks had been a Trump Organization employee long before Trump became president, and a lot of her core evidence involved that time, Vance said.
She added that evidence was central to the conviction.
ALSO READ: Hope Hicks bursts into tears on witness stand in Trump hush money trial
"It'll be hard to say prosecutors didn't ask the jury to rely on that evidence,” she said. "So I think the better argument for the government here is that it's just not evidence of official acts. And you know, Hope Hicks is in a really unique position because she was not a White House assistant who went to work for the president, she traveled with Donald Trump."
"She was involved in the initial acts here where the decision was made that Stormy Daniels would be paid off," she added. "She was around for the whole Michael Cohen thing, and so I think the government has a great argument that this is just transferring pre-presidency Donald Trump — candidate Trump — into the White House."
"I mean, when Donald Trump writes checks to pay his utilities in Trump Tower, if he does that while he's sitting in the White House, that doesn't make it an official act just because of where he's sitting or who he has a conversation with or gives the check to," she said. "So I think the prosecution has a strong argument here."
