Former President Donald Trump faces an arduous challenge in his attempt to overturn his Manhattan hush money conviction, despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling granting presidents immunity for "official acts." Legal experts believe the high court's decision has little chance of impacting Trump's state-level conviction, as the alleged cover-up of payments to a porn star is unlikely to be considered an official presidential duty.
Uncovering the Truth: Trump's Bid to Overturn Conviction Faces Steep Odds
Challenging the Evidence
Trump's legal team is arguing that prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office improperly allowed jurors to hear evidence from Trump's time in the White House, including key testimony from his former top communications aide, Hope Hicks. Hicks testified that Trump, in a 2018 conversation when he was president, felt "it was better to be dealing" with sex allegations from porn star Stormy Daniels at that time than before the 2016 election. The testimony was described as "devastating" evidence that the hush money payment to Daniels was part of an illegal "conspiracy" to hide her story from voters in 2016.Trump's lawyers claim that the jury was improperly allowed to hear this testimony and other evidence from the ex-president's stint in the White House, arguing that it unfairly influenced the jury. They assert that this "official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury" and that, after further briefing on these issues, "it will be manifest that the trial result cannot stand."
The Immunity Question
In an ironic twist, experts suggest that Trump may have had a stronger argument on the immunity question if his ex-fixer, Michael Cohen, had been part of the administration during the alleged cover-up scheme. As Cohen was not a White House employee, it is "hard to argue that what Michael Cohen was up to was in anyway an 'official' act," according to attorney Steven Cohen.The Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity has dealt a blow to the federal election-interference case against Trump, but legal experts believe it is unlikely to overturn his state-level conviction in the Manhattan hush money case. They argue that covering up payments to a porn star is not part of the core constitutional duties of the presidency, and that the challenged evidence from Trump's time in the White House is likely to be considered "harmless" by appeals courts.
The Road Ahead
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has left open the possibility that he could side with Trump and vacate the jury's May 30 verdict, which found the ex-president guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. However, legal experts believe it is more likely that Merchan will rule that Trump's actions in covering up the Daniels hush money payment throughout 2017, including by signing checks to his Michael Cohen while sitting in the Oval Office, are not part of a president's official duties.The judge may then leave questions about whether prosecutors inappropriately used trial evidence from Trump's time in the White House for appeals courts to decide. While it is unlikely that the state appeals court will throw out the conviction based on the immunity issue, defense lawyer Robert Gottlieb cautioned that "in today's legal world that has been upside down, I would be a fool to say anything is impossible."Trump is currently scheduled to be sentenced on September 18, but the date may be subject to further delays as the court and prosecution aim to address the ex-president's claims. Despite the legal challenges, experts believe that the conviction is unlikely to be overturned, as the hush money payment and cover-up were outside the scope of Trump's official presidential duties.
