Attorneys for Donald Trump filed a request on Tuesday asking New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan to dismiss the hush money case against the president-elect despite the guilty verdict delivered in May.
The lengthy filing comes after Merchan indefinitely delayed Trump’s sentencing date last month, following his reelection, as sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted. His sentencing had already been pushed back several times due to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision expanding presidential immunity.
Nothing short of a full dismissal will do, Trump’s attorneys argued, objecting to the idea of postponing the sentencing to the end of Trump’s second term in 2029.
“[I]t would be egregious and unlawful for this Court to hold the prospect of a 2029 sentencing over President Trump’s head while he continues his service to this Country,” the filing read.
The lawyers’ arguments centred on the immunity ruling and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause establishing that the federal government takes precedence over state-level affairs. But much of the document was devoted to arguing that the trial itself had been unfair to Trump.
The lawyers cited President Joe Biden’s recent decision to pardon his son to argue that Trump, like Hunter Biden, was “selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted” and “treated differently.”
“Since [Manhattan District Attorney Alvin] Bragg took office, he has engaged in ‘precisely the type of political theatre’ that President Biden condemned,” Trump’s filing read.
“This case would never have been brought were it not for President Trump’s political views, the transformative national movement established under his leadership, and the political threat that he poses to entrenched, corrupt politicians in Washington, DC, and beyond.”
The lawyers said that proceeding with sentencing in “this failed lawfare case” would improperly disrupt the incoming president’s transition.
A jury of New Yorkers found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts in a case that revolved around a $130,000 payment to the porn actor Stormy Daniels made in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election. The payment was wired by Trump’s personal attorney at the time, Michael Cohen, who was subsequently reimbursed in monthly instalments over a period of around a year.
Bragg’s office successfully argued that the repayment scheme constituted falsified business records, as the expense was described as legal services instead of a payment intended to influence an election.
But the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity threw a wrench into the case. Trump’s attorneys asked for more time to figure out how the ruling applies to the charges against Trump, who was in the White House during the period of time he was signing checks reimbursing Cohen.
The high court decreed that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for all official actions taken as part of the duties of their office.
While Bragg did not object to Merchan cancelling Trump’s most recent sentencing date, he indicated he would fight the attempt to completely dismiss the case. His office is expected to file their response to the Trump team’s brief later this month.
