Donald Trump’s lawyers asked the judge overseeing his Manhattan hush-money criminal case for permission to make yet another play for dismissal, arguing that throwing out the case was necessary “in order to facilitate the orderly transition of Executive power” following his victory over Kamala Harris.
Todd Blanche, Trump’s lead attorney and pick for deputy US attorney general, and Emil Bove, his choice for principal associate deputy attorney general, railed against the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, in their missive to Judge Juan Merchan, which was made public on Wednesday.
Bragg’s office, they complained, “appears to not yet be ready to dismiss this politically-motivated and fatally flawed case, which is what is mandated by the law and will happen as justice takes its course”.
They noted that the justice department is poised to toss federal cases against Trump, given departmental policy that bars prosecuting sitting presidents.
“As in those cases, dismissal is necessary here,” their filing contended. “Just as a sitting President is completely immune from any criminal process, so too is President Trump as President-elect.”
They said that continuing with this case would “be uniquely destabilizing” and could “hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs”.
The attorneys requested a 20 December deadline for filing their pitch on why Trump’s election merits dismissal of this case.
Trump was found guilty on 30 May of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records in an illicit scheme to influence the 2016 election. Prosecutors said that Trump falsely recorded reimbursements to his then lawyer Michael Cohen, who paid the adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump, as “legal expenses”.
The jurors presiding over Trump’s case reached their verdict in less than 12 hours. The watershed proceedings marked not only the first time a president – former or sitting – faced a criminal trial, but also a conviction.
This letter became public after prosecutors on Tuesday told the court that they planned to fight Trump’s expected push for its dismissal following his win. Prosecutors’ letter laid out the arguments they expected Trump to make in a post-win push for dismissal.
Bragg’s office contended that Merchan should schedule a timeline for Trump’s expected motion to dismiss, which prosecutors said they “intend to oppose”. They also said other proceedings in this case should be postponed until the dismissal issue is determined.
These developments suggest that Trump’s scheduled 26 November sentencing in his Manhattan criminal hush-money case is all but certainly postponed, given the litany of issues to be litigated.
Prosecutors said in their letter that they had considered Trump’s arguments for dismissal of late which, they noted, featured the claim that he had “legal immunity from criminal prosecution based on his current status as president-elect”. They also referred to his attempts to move this case to federal court – which had fallen flat.
Trump, prosecutors had noted, claimed that his case should be thrown out just because the appeals could not be concluded before inauguration. Prosecutors noted that Trump’s lawyers also previously expressed belief that he would be “completely immune from indictment or any criminal process”.
Prosecutors said they respected the presidency and recognized the logistical constraints. But, they wrote, “No current law establishes that a president’s temporary immunity from prosecution requires dismissal of a post-trial criminal proceeding that was initiated at a time when the defendant was not immune from criminal prosecution, and that is based on unofficial conduct from which the defendant is also not immune.”
They have contended that courts must balance differing constitutional interests to protect both the executive branch’s independence and the justice system’s integrity.
Prosecutors also said in their letter to Merchan that options other than dismissal should be weighed, including “deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of Defendant’s upcoming presidential term”.
In addition to the post-election issues poised for litigation, Merchan had been scheduled to issue a decision on Trump’s pre-election immunity bid. The US supreme court ruled on 1 July that sitting presidents enjoy broad immunity for official acts carried out during their time in office, saying this decision undermined the conviction.
Both prosecutors and defense lawyers last week asked Merchan to put proceedings on pause given new circumstances prompted by the election. The prosecution had asked for a week to indicate how they thought this case should proceed, resulting in their Tuesday letter.
Trump’s win has sent other criminal proceedings against him into a tailspin. The justice department is winding down its two federal cases against Trump, and the state-level election interference case in Georgia appears to be in limbo.
