itstargetnews
A judge on Monday refused to overturn US President-elect Donald Trump’s money laundering conviction that was thrown out because of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity. But the overall future of the case remains unclear.
Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan’s decision eliminates one potential ramp from the case before the former and future president returns to office next month. However, Trump’s lawyers presented other arguments for the removal. It is unclear when – or if – a sentencing date will be set.
Prosecutors said there should be some consent for his incoming presidency, but insist the ruling should stand.
Jury denounced Trump in May of 34 counts of falsifying business documents in connection with the payment of 130,000 US dollars in secret money to porn actress Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies wrongdoing.
The allegations included a scheme to hide payments to Daniels during the final days of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to prevent her from going public — and prevent voters from hearing — her allegation of sexual contact with a then-married businessman years earlier. He says nothing sexual happened between them.
Judgment of the Supreme Court after the verdict
Weeks after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts — things they did while running the country — and that prosecutors cannot cite those acts to bolster a case centered on purely personal, non-official conduct.
Trump’s lawyers then cited the Supreme Court’s opinion to argue that the money laundering jury received some improper evidence, such as Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.
In Monday’s ruling, Merchan denied most of Trump’s claims that some of the prosecutors’ evidence related to official acts and implied immunity protections.
The judge said that even if he finds that some of the evidence relates to official conduct, he will still consider that the prosecutor’s decision to use “these actions as evidence of highly personal acts of falsification of business documents does not pose a threat of encroachment on the power and functions of the executive branch. “
Even if prosecutors had misintroduced evidence that could be challenged under an immunity claim, Merchan continued, “such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.”
Prosecutors said the evidence in question was only a “piece” of their case.
Trump communications director Steven Cheung on Monday called Merchan’s decision “a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and other long-standing case law.”
“This illegal case should never have been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be dismissed immediately,” Cheung said in a statement.
The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who handled the case, declined to comment.
Merchan’s decision noted that part of the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity says that “not everything the president does is official.” Trump’s social media posts, for example, were personal, Merchan wrote.
Former US President Donald Trump was found guilty in a New York embezzlement trial. CBC’s Anya Zoledziowski breaks down the key evidence and witnesses that led the jury to the historic conviction.
He also pointed to a previous federal court ruling that concluded the hush money payment and subsequent compensation related to Trump’s private life, not his official duties.
Trump, 78, takes office on January 20. He is the first former president to be convicted of a felony and the first convicted felon to be elected to office.
Click to see conviction, case dismissed
Over the past six months, Trump’s lawyers have made numerous efforts to have the conviction and the entire case thrown out. After Trump won last month’s election, Merchan postponed the sentencing — which had been scheduled for late November — indefinitely so defense lawyers and prosecutors could suggest next steps.
Trump’s defense argued that anything short of immediate removal would undermine the transfer of power and cause unconstitutional “disorder” in the presidency.
Meanwhile, prosecutors have proposed several ways to preserve the historic ruling. Among the proposals: freezing the case until Trump leaves office in 2029; agreeing that any future sentence shall not include imprisonment; or closing the case noting that he was convicted but not convicted and that his appeal was not resolved because he took office.
The last idea is drawn from what some states do when a defendant dies after conviction but before sentencing.
Trump’s lawyers called the concept “absurd” and disputed other proposals.
