US Judge Denies Donald Trump's Bid to Throw Out Hush Money Conviction in Big Court Setback

Washington: A US judge on Monday (December 16) rejected US President-elect Donald Trump 's bid to dismiss conviction because of the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, AP reported.

Manhattan Judge Juan M Merchan's decision eliminates one of the potential off-ramps from the case ahead of Trump's return to the White House next month. However, the overall future of the case remains to be determined, as his lawyers have raised other arguments for dismissal.

The judge said that even if he found that some evidence related to official conduct, he’d still find that prosecutors’ decision to use "these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch."

Merchan continued to state that even if prosecutors had erroneously introduced evidence that could be challenged under an immunity claim, "such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt."

Prosecutors had said the evidence in question was only "a sliver" of their case.

Prosecutors have argued that there should be some accommodation for his upcoming presidency, insisting that the conviction should stand.

In May, a jury convicted the president-elect of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to adult movie actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies any wrongdoing.

The allegations involved a scheme to hide the payout to Daniels during the final days of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to keep her from publicizing — and keep voters from hearing — her claim of a sexual encounter with the married then-businessman years earlier. He says nothing sexual happened between them.

Following this, a month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts — things they did in the course of running the country — and that prosecutors can’t cite those actions to bolster a case centred on purely personal, unofficial conduct.

Trump’s lawyers then cited the Supreme Court opinion to argue that the hush money jury got some improper evidence, such as Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form, testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.

Meanwhile, Trump's communications director Steven Cheung on Monday called Merchan’s decision a “direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence.”

“This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed,” Cheung said in a statement.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, declined to comment.

Trump takes office Jan. 20.

(Inputs from AP)