In a significant development in the hush money trial involving former President Donald Trump, Judge Juan M. Merchan has postponed the ruling on presidential immunity until two days before Trump’s scheduled sentencing. Originally set for September 6, the immunity decision has been rescheduled to September 16, pending the judge’s decision on whether to recuse himself from the case.
Last week, Trump’s lawyers requested Judge Merchan to rule first on their renewed bid for his recusal. The defense argues that the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity should overturn the guilty verdict and dismiss the entire hush money case against Trump. They also claim that the trial was tainted by the inclusion of evidence that should not have been allowed under the high court’s ruling, such as testimony from Trump White House staffers and tweets he sent while in office.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which is prosecuting the case, maintains that the Supreme Court’s opinion has no bearing on the hush money case, as it involves unofficial acts for which the former president is not immune.
Trump was found guilty in May of falsifying business records to conceal a payment made to porn actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 election. Daniels had been considering going public with a story of a sexual encounter with Trump from a decade earlier. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, facilitated the payment and was later reimbursed by Trump’s company, which recorded it as legal expenses. Prosecutors argue that this was an attempt to disguise the true nature of the transactions and the underlying hush money agreement.
Trump has consistently denied Daniels’ claim, asserting his innocence and alleging that the case is politically motivated. The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is a Democrat.
Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers have made a third request for Judge Merchan to recuse himself from the case, citing his daughter’s work for Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign as a potential bias. Merchan had previously rejected two recusal requests, deeming the concerns as hypothetical and unsupported speculation. However, Trump’s legal team argues that Harris’ entry into the presidential race makes these concerns more concrete and demands further examination.
1 Response
This is an interesting post that highlights an important development in the hush money trial involving former President Donald Trump. The mention of Judge Juan M. adds credibility to the information presented. However, it would be helpful to provide more context or details about the trial and its implications to give readers a better understanding of the situation. Overall, great job on keeping readers informed about this ongoing legal matter.