In a move that highlights his ongoing struggle with accountability, former US President Donald Trump has filed an appeal against his conviction related to the hush money scheme during his 2016 presidential campaign. The conviction, handed down by New York state prosecutors last year, stems from allegations of falsifying business records to cover up payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
Trump's lawyers are now arguing that the prosecution relied on evidence derived from his official presidential acts, which he claims is not permissible under the immunity ruling established in a previous case. The Supreme Court's decision, which Trump cited as a precedent, states that using evidence of official acts to secure convictions for unofficial conduct would be unconstitutional.
According to Trump's lawyers, this immunity ruling applies to all cases involving his official presidential acts, including discussions with officials like Hope Hicks, statements on social media, and testimony about White House operations. They claim that these actions were "unofficial" in nature and therefore not subject to prosecution.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office had argued that the immunity ruling did not apply to this case, stating that it would not support vacating the jury verdict even if the reasoning applied here. However, Trump's lawyers are pushing back on this assertion, arguing that the prosecution relied too heavily on these official presidential acts.
Trump's appeal has now been filed with the New York intermediate appeals court, which is expected to make a decision in the coming weeks or months. If not satisfied with this outcome, his case could potentially be reviewed by the state's top court and even the US Supreme Court, although it remains uncertain when that may happen.
It's worth noting that Trump's conviction was largely seen as an attempt to hold him accountable for any wrongdoing related to his presidential campaign. As such, his ongoing efforts to have the conviction overturned represent a significant challenge to the rule of law in the United States and raise questions about the limits of presidential immunity.
In January, Trump received a sentence of unconditional discharge, effectively allowing the case to be resolved before he re-entered the White House. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed this sentencing to proceed, although four Republican-appointed justices dissented from the majority's decision.
The appeal now presents a fresh opportunity for Trump's lawyers to argue that their client was unfairly prosecuted and that key evidence used by prosecutors was unreliable or inadmissible.
Trump's lawyers are now arguing that the prosecution relied on evidence derived from his official presidential acts, which he claims is not permissible under the immunity ruling established in a previous case. The Supreme Court's decision, which Trump cited as a precedent, states that using evidence of official acts to secure convictions for unofficial conduct would be unconstitutional.
According to Trump's lawyers, this immunity ruling applies to all cases involving his official presidential acts, including discussions with officials like Hope Hicks, statements on social media, and testimony about White House operations. They claim that these actions were "unofficial" in nature and therefore not subject to prosecution.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office had argued that the immunity ruling did not apply to this case, stating that it would not support vacating the jury verdict even if the reasoning applied here. However, Trump's lawyers are pushing back on this assertion, arguing that the prosecution relied too heavily on these official presidential acts.
Trump's appeal has now been filed with the New York intermediate appeals court, which is expected to make a decision in the coming weeks or months. If not satisfied with this outcome, his case could potentially be reviewed by the state's top court and even the US Supreme Court, although it remains uncertain when that may happen.
It's worth noting that Trump's conviction was largely seen as an attempt to hold him accountable for any wrongdoing related to his presidential campaign. As such, his ongoing efforts to have the conviction overturned represent a significant challenge to the rule of law in the United States and raise questions about the limits of presidential immunity.
In January, Trump received a sentence of unconditional discharge, effectively allowing the case to be resolved before he re-entered the White House. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed this sentencing to proceed, although four Republican-appointed justices dissented from the majority's decision.
The appeal now presents a fresh opportunity for Trump's lawyers to argue that their client was unfairly prosecuted and that key evidence used by prosecutors was unreliable or inadmissible.
... it's like trying to hide behind the White House doors again 
. The prosecution is saying no way, these actions are separate from official presidential duties 
. It's not about whether he was president or not, but what he did in those 4 years 
. The real question is, can one person's actions be held accountable? 
. Like, come on, dude, you got caught red-handed (or should I say, red-bucks? 
) and now you're trying to claim that all your "official" presidential acts are off-limits from prosecution? Give me a break! 
The fact that he's trying to use this immunity ruling as a get-out-of-jail-free card is just laughable. Newsflash, Donnie: being the President doesn't give you a free pass for bad behavior 
. And honestly, if anyone thinks Trump didn't engage in some shady stuff during his campaign, they need to rewatch all those tapes and take another look at Stormy's allegations 
. I'm all for due process and holding people accountable, but this appeal is just a desperate attempt to cling to power 
.
. I mean, come on, we all know the truth about those payments to Stormy Daniels... it's not exactly rocket science, is it? 
But seriously, this whole thing just reeks of him trying to avoid accountability for his actions as president. And honestly, I think he has a pretty weak argument - if anyone can be held accountable for their official acts, it's the guy who was in the Oval Office making them! 
.
. It's all about power trips and manipulating the system to get out of trouble. And honestly, I'm so tired of these appeals and delays 
]
]
"]
. Like, if the Supreme Court said it's not permissible, why are they even appealing? And what about all those official presidential acts he used as evidence? 
. but honestly, i think the evidence against him is pretty strong 
. he's not gonna get away w/ dis one 
. anywayz, i'll b keepin an eye on dis story and see how it all plays out 
The prosecution is using his official presidential acts as evidence, which Trump's lawyers are saying isn't fair. I can see why they'd say that - it does seem like a lot of wiggle room. Plus, the Supreme Court said something about immunity ruling in a previous case, so I think there's some merit to their argument. Maybe this appeal will show that his conviction wasn't as solid as everyone thought? 
. But at this point, I think it's clear: accountability is not exactly his strong suit 
. His lawyers are going to have to convince me that the prosecution made some huge mistake... but I'm not holding my breath 
.
.
.
Trump's lawyers are basically saying that because he was president, he should be above the law, which is super concerning 
The state prosecutors were right to pursue this case, IMHO, and it's a shame that trump's going to try to spin this again 