Breaking: Manhattan DA Asks Judge to Put Trump Hush-Money Case on Hold until after Presidency

novembre 19, 2024

Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg is asking the judge in Donald Trump’s hush-money case to put proceedings on hold until after the president-elect’s second term ends in 2029.

Bragg’s office is pushing back against a motion from Trump’s attorneys to have Judge Juan Merchan dismiss the case entirely in light of Trump’s return to the White House. Merchan is expected to rule on that request in the coming weeks and will likely, at the very least, push back Trump’s November 26 sentencing date.

Merchan delayed the ruling last week, given Trump’s reelection. The judge opted to give prosecutors time to take Trump's impending return to the White House into account for determining next steps in the case.

Bragg plans on opposing the defense’s motion to dismiss the conviction, the Democratic district attorney wrote in a letter to Merchan on Tuesday. However, Bragg said his office does not intend to object to Trump’s request to stay further court proceedings pending the defense’s motion to dismiss.

“Given the need to balance competing constitutional interests, consideration must be given to various non-dismissal options that may address any concerns raised by the pendency of a post-trial criminal proceeding during the presidency, such as deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of Defendant's upcoming presidential term,” Bragg wrote.

After pleading not guilty, Trump was convicted in May on 34 criminal counts for falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush-money payment he made to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election cycle. Daniels claimed she slept with Trump in 2006 and said that he paid her off to stay quiet about the encounter. The alleged affair took place four months after Trump's son, Barron, was born.

In addition to Trump’s incoming term, the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity plays a role in the fate of the hush-money conviction.

In July, the Supreme Court held that former presidents have absolute immunity for official acts as president. By that logic, Trump was granted presidential immunity from criminal prosecution regarding actions he took in office. The case concerns Trump's status as a former president, not an incoming one.

Trump’s lawyers argued certain evidence that prosecutors presented to the jury during the seven-week trial was “tainted,” including testimony about Trump’s first term. Based on the faulty evidence, the argument is that the Court's ruling protects Trump. As a result, his attorneys said the verdict should be vacated. New York prosecutors disagreed, claiming the Court’s ruling has “no basis” in the case.