...
By Rachel Dobkin
Weekend Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling "could knock out" former President Donald Trump's New York hush money verdict, says MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin.
In late May, Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Daniels alleges she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which he denies. The former president has maintained his innocence, claiming the case is politically motivated. His legal team intends to appeal the verdict.
Rubin wrote in the headline of an article for MSNBC's MaddowBlog, a product of the Rachel Maddow Show, on Friday that the Supreme Court's recent decision on presidential immunity is "the gift that keeps on giving."
Read More
Christian Petition Condemns Republican’s Push for Bible in Public Schools3 min read
Mary Trump Predicts Who Has the ‘Best Chance’ of Beating Donald Trump3 min read
Putin Ally Warns NATO Underestimates Russia’s Nuclear Threats3 min read
Trump's legal team filed a motion on Wednesday, which was made public on Thursday, to dismiss the hush money case and vacate the jury's verdict in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. They argued that New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case against Trump, "violated the Presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause by relying on evidence relating to President Trump's official acts in 2017 and 2018 to unfairly prejudice" the former president.
While Rubin said that "their understanding of what comprises official conduct is, at best, elastic, and likely stretched too far for Judge [Juan] Merchan," who is overseeing the case, one argument made by Trump's team "strikes me as more faithful to the Supreme Court's majority opinion—and could knock out the verdict entirely."
In Trump's motion, part of the Supreme Court's decision is cited: "Questions about whether the President may be held liable for particular actions, consistent with the separation of powers, must be addressed at the outset of a proceeding."
Trump's team argues, "The harm resulting from [Bragg's] actions is irreparable because it will cause future Presidents to be "unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties" and to fear "[v]ulnerability to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome," citing the Court's ruling again. "Under these circumstances, the only appropriate remedy is dismissal," Trump's team added.
Newsweek reached out to Trump's spokesperson, Steven Cheung, and his lawyer, Todd Blanche, via email for comment. Newsweek also reached out to Bragg's office via email and Rubin via social media direct message for comment.
Rubin said Trump's motion "exploits that ambiguity" on whether the Court's "outset of a proceeding" rule applies to evidentiary disputes.
"Merchan could find himself boxed in by a ruling that neither existed nor was even requested by Trump's team in its briefs to the Supreme Court," Rubin explained. "And if that happens, that's when the staggering breadth of the conservative justices' gift to Trump will be fully understood."
The Court ruled 6-3 on July 1 that former presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, but not for unofficial acts. The ruling stemmed from Trump's argument that he cannot be prosecuted in a separate federal election interference case related to the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, because his alleged actions surrounding the riot were protected under presidential immunity. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in the federal election interference case and, again, claims it is politically motivated.
...
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines