Prosecutors are pushing for the preservation of Donald Trump's hush money conviction, despite the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. The Manhattan district attorney's office argues that the verdict should stand as it pertains to unofficial acts for which the former president is not immune. They emphasize that the case focused on evidence of Trump's personal conduct, not his official acts, and therefore, the Supreme Court's opinion does not impact the hush money case.
Trump's legal team is seeking to have the verdict and indictment dismissed in light of the Supreme Court's decision. They claim that the trial was tainted by evidence that should not have been allowed under the new ruling, such as testimony from White House staffers and tweets from Trump during his presidency.
Prosecutors maintain that the Supreme Court ruling does not apply to the evidence presented in the case and assert that the jury's verdict should not be disturbed. They highlight that the evidence considered by the jury was extensive and not solely reliant on Trump's official acts.
The case revolves around Trump's involvement in concealing a payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Trump denies any wrongdoing and alleges that the case is politically motivated. The sentencing, scheduled for September 18, could result in probation or up to four years in prison if the verdict stands.
While the Supreme Court did not clearly define what constitutes an official act, lower courts are tasked with interpreting this. Trump's lawyers have previously raised presidential immunity as a defense but did not do so during the hush money trial. The judge is expected to rule on Trump's request to overturn the verdict on September 6.
Despite the ongoing legal battle, the case underscores the complex interplay between presidential immunity, personal conduct, and official acts in the realm of legal proceedings.
