The New York judge in President-elect Donald Trump’s criminal hush money case ruled Monday that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision does not apply to that case.
Trump had sought to dismiss the indictment and vacate the jury verdict on the grounds that prosecutors introduced evidence relating to Trump’s official acts as president, after the Supreme Court ruled in July that Trump is entitled to presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office.
However, Judge Juan Merchan said on Monday that the evidence in Trump’s hush money case related “entirely to unofficial conduct” and “poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”
Trump was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election. Judge Merchan has yet to hand down a sentence.
In his ruling Monday, Merchan judge found that there was “overwhelming evidence of guilt” that led the jury to convict Trump at his trial last spring.
Defense attorneys had emphasized the importance of former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks’ testimony, including her recounting of interactions with Trump in 2018 when reporting about the alleged hush money payment to Stormy Daniels broke, to demonstrate Trump’s knowledge of the payment and preference that the story came out after the election.
President-elect Donald Trump delivers remarks at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Dec. 16, 2024.
Brian Snyder/Reuters
Defense lawyers used a similar argument to argue that tweets from Trump — which prosecutors used to demonstrate an alleged “pressure campaign” to prevent Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen from cooperating with authorities in 2018 — were official communications protected by immunity because the posts “fall well within the core authority of the Nation’s Chief Executive.”
But Merchan on Monday rejected Trump’s argument that the testimony of Hicks, Trump’s Twitter posts about Cohen, and other evidence, constitute official acts.
“Just as the title of Communications Director does not bestow absolute immunity to any and all communications with Ms. Hicks, neither does mere reference to the Justice Department convert a Tweet to an official act,” Merchan wrote in his ruling.
“It is therefore logical and reasonable to conclude that if the act of falsifying records to cover up the payments so that the public would not be made aware is decidedly an unofficial act, so too should the communications to further that same cover-up be unofficial,” the judge wrote
Trump has also offered another argument that he is entitled to presidential immunity because he is now president-elect, which Merchan has yet to rule on.
Last week, the Manhattan district attorney’s office urged Merchan to preserve the jury’s verdict and sentence Trump at some later date following his second term, but Trump’s attorneys blasted that proposal as “thuggish tactics.”
