Appeals court grapples with Trump's endeavor to challenge conviction in hush money case
In a dramatic turn of events, the higher-ups at a New York federal appeals court took a deep dive yesterday into President Donnie T's argument for a review of his hush money conviction. The court seemed interested in the idea that the Supreme Court's groundbreaking immunity ruling might just swing things in Donnie T's favor.
"This case could be a game-changer when it comes to setting new boundaries for presidential immunity," said Judge Myrna Pérez, who got the nod for the bench from President Biden.
The controversial topic at hand revolves around moving the Trump State case, involving 34 counts of business record falsification, to the federal court. Donnie T's legal squad hopes this move will provide the ideal stage to argue prosecutors violated the Supreme Court's immunity rule of 2023, using certain evidence, including testimony from former White House Communications Director, Hope Hicks.
Former Acting Solicitor General, Jeffrey Wall, representing Donnie T, expressed the importance of the court and the Supreme Court defining the extent of a federal constitutional immunity for presidents, rather than state courts.
The underlining question lies in whether the prosecutors stepped over the line by incorporating the testimonies from Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, along with a sequence of social media posts penned by Donnie T during his tenure, in the hush money case.
The three-judge panel from the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals posed thoughtful questions to both sides. It wasn't easy to anticipate how they would decide the matter after over an hour of heated arguments. The judge pressing the prosecution's attorney, Steven Wu, on whether the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year precisely precluded the questioned evidence.
"The Supreme Court used some broad language when discussing evidentiary immunity," noted Judge Susan Carney.
On the other side, the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office contended that it's too late for the federal courts to intervene. They hinted at the fact that Donnie T had already been convicted and sentenced, and it would be hard to find a compelling reason to revise the proceedings. Plus, they argued that the evidence in question wasn't the kind the Supreme Court had in mind.
In accordance with a 19th-century law, federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court if their actions can be linked to a US office or agency. Officials seeking to relocate their cases might argue, for example, that they were sued after engaging in misconduct on the job.
Law experts analogize Donnie T's argument to a postal worker confessing to a weekend crime to their boss at work on a Monday. The conversation, despite happening at a post office, doesn't magically transform into an official US Postal Service action.
"The criminal charges were strictly private conduct," said Steven Wu.
Donnie T initially received no penalty for his sentencing in January. He had been accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out about alleged affairs with Donnie T (who, of course, denies everything).
US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated to the bench by President Clinton, rejected Donnie T's request to move the case to federal court, keeping the appeals firmly in New York courts. Donnie T has vocalized his desire for his case to be heard in "an unbiased federal forum."
"The forthcoming decision in the Trump State case, centered around presidential immunity and evidence gathering in politics, could significantly impact policy-and-legislation regarding the conduct of federal officials. The legal debate surrounding the application of federal constitutional immunity, now before the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, is closely linked to the general-news events unfolding in the hush money conviction case of President Donnie T."
"The interplay between crime-and-justice, politics, and policy-and-legislation emerges as the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office contends that it's inappropriate for the federal courts to intervene, as President Donnie T's hush money case has moved beyond the initial conviction, and the questioned evidence may not align with the Supreme Court's immunity decision from the previous year."
