Judge Rules Against Dismissing Trump’s Hush Money Conviction

## Judge Denies Trump‘s Attempt to Dismiss Hush Money Case Former President Donald Trump’s legal team suffered a setback in their efforts to have the hush money case against him dismissed. A judge has ruled against their motion, paving the way for the trial to proceed. The case centers around alleged payments made during Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels to prevent her from disclosing an alleged affair. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His lawyers had argued for dismissal, but the judge’s ruling indicates the case will move forward. The outcome of this case coudl have notable implications for Trump, notably as he seeks the Republican nomination for the 2024 presidential election.

Trump Hush Money Conviction Stands Despite Immunity Arguments

A New York judge has ruled that Donald Trump’s conviction related to hush money payments will not be dismissed, despite recent Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity. Judge Juan Merchan issued a 41-page decision on Monday, stating that the evidence against Trump presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office was unrelated to his actions as president. This crucial detail, according to Merchan, prevents the submission of presidential immunity in this case. The judge’s decision effectively upholds Trump’s conviction, dealing a blow to his legal team’s arguments for dismissal based on presidential immunity.

Judge Sidesteps Trump’s Presidential Immunity Claim in Conviction Case

In a recent legal development,a judge,without directly addressing arguments about former President Trump’s presidential immunity,has chosen to focus solely on legal precedents surrounding that specific doctrine. This decision means the broader question of whether Trump’s presidency shields him from the effects of a previous conviction remains open. The ruling is a strategic move by the judge, carefully navigating a complex legal landscape. While it avoids directly ruling on Trump’s broader claim of immunity, it sets the stage for further legal wrangling over the implications of his presidency on his legal standing. Adding another layer to the case, Trump’s legal team had also filed a separate motion seeking to have the conviction dismissed based on his subsequent election as president. This motion, too, was set aside by the judge’s decision, keeping the focus strictly on the intricacies of presidential immunity.

Trump’s Legal Team Faces Setback in classified Documents Case

In a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over classified documents, a federal judge has ruled against former President Donald Trump’s attempt to shield certain evidence. The judge’s decision hinges on the nature of the disputed evidence, which she determined to be related to “unofficial conduct” and therefore not covered by presidential immunity. This ruling represents a crucial win for the government as it pursues its case against Trump. It means that key pieces of evidence,which Trump’s lawyers had sought to exclude,will now be admissible in court. The specific details of the evidence in question remain under seal. ” The judge’s ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications for the case, potentially strengthening the government’s position and putting further pressure on Trump’s legal team. As the case progresses,all eyes will be on the unfolding legal drama and its potential consequences for the former president.

“this Court concludes that ⁣if error occurred regarding the‌ introduction of the⁤ challenged evidence, such error was⁣ harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of ​guilt,” merchan wrote. “even if this Court did find that the disputed evidence constitutes official acts under the ⁢auspices of the trump decision,⁣ which it does‍ not, Defendant’s motion is still denied as introduction of the disputed evidence constitutes harmless error and no mode of proceedings error has ‌taken place.”

Political discourse can be intensely heated, with strong opinions on all sides. A recent statement has ignited debate, with some advocating for an end to what they perceive as “hoaxes” to foster national unity. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans,” a spokesperson stated. This statement has triggered a range of reactions,with some applauding the call for unity and others questioning the characterization of certain issues as “hoaxes.” The debate underscores the deep divisions that exist within the country and the challenges of achieving a shared understanding of facts and truth. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. The details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a thorough report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. the details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a comprehensive report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling.
## Archyde Interview: Trump Legal Team Criticizes Judge’s Ruling in Hush Money Case





**Host:**



Welcome back to Archyde. Today we’re discussing the latest developments in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Joining us is [Guest Name],a legal analyst specializing in Constitutional Law and campaign finance.



[Guest Name], thank you for being here.





**guest:**



Thank you for having me.



**Host:**



Let’s jump right in. This week, a judge rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the hush money case against him. Could you explain the case and why this ruling is meaningful?



**Guest:**



this case revolves around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, allegedly to prevent her from disclosing an affair with Trump.Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His legal team argued that the case should be dismissed,but the judge’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed. This is significant because it means Trump will have to face these charges in court, adding another layer of complexity to his already crowded legal calendar.



**Host:**



Trump’s legal team has been vocal in its criticism of the judge, alleging that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity.



**Guest:**



that’s right. They argue that actions taken during a president’s term are covered by immunity, and that this case should be dismissed based on that principle. They also claim the Constitution itself mandates dismissal in this instance. However, the judge specifically addressed this argument, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is unrelated to Trump’s actions as president.



**Host:**



So, essentially, the judge is saying that Trump’s argument for immunity doesn’t hold up because the alleged actions in question are not part of his official presidential duties?



**Guest:**



Precisely. The judge found that these actions,even if they occurred during his presidency,transpired outside the scope of his official duties and therefore are not subject to presidential immunity. this argument echoes other legal precedents that have established limits on presidential immunity.



**Host:**



The judge’s ruling is attracting a lot of attention, not just for its legal implications, but also for its potential political ramifications.



**Guest:**



Absolutely. This case is unfolding as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president in 2024.A conviction in this case could considerably impact his political future. His legal troubles are already a major topic of debate within the Republican Party, and this growth likely will only amplify those discussions.





**Host:**



[Guest Name], thank you for providing such insightful analysis on this complex and developing situation. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our audience.



**Guest:**



My pleasure.It’s an important case to watch. Political discourse can be intensely heated, with strong opinions on all sides. A recent statement has ignited debate, with some advocating for an end to what they perceive as “hoaxes” to foster national unity. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans,” a spokesperson stated. This statement has triggered a range of reactions,with some applauding the call for unity and others questioning the characterization of certain issues as “hoaxes.” The debate underscores the deep divisions that exist within the country and the challenges of achieving a shared understanding of facts and truth. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. The details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a thorough report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. the details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a comprehensive report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling.
## Archyde Interview: Trump Legal Team Criticizes Judge’s Ruling in Hush Money Case





**Host:**



Welcome back to Archyde. Today we’re discussing the latest developments in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Joining us is [Guest Name],a legal analyst specializing in Constitutional Law and campaign finance.



[Guest Name], thank you for being here.





**guest:**



Thank you for having me.



**Host:**



Let’s jump right in. This week, a judge rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the hush money case against him. Could you explain the case and why this ruling is meaningful?



**Guest:**



this case revolves around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, allegedly to prevent her from disclosing an affair with Trump.Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His legal team argued that the case should be dismissed,but the judge’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed. This is significant because it means Trump will have to face these charges in court, adding another layer of complexity to his already crowded legal calendar.



**Host:**



Trump’s legal team has been vocal in its criticism of the judge, alleging that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity.



**Guest:**



that’s right. They argue that actions taken during a president’s term are covered by immunity, and that this case should be dismissed based on that principle. They also claim the Constitution itself mandates dismissal in this instance. However, the judge specifically addressed this argument, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is unrelated to Trump’s actions as president.



**Host:**



So, essentially, the judge is saying that Trump’s argument for immunity doesn’t hold up because the alleged actions in question are not part of his official presidential duties?



**Guest:**



Precisely. The judge found that these actions,even if they occurred during his presidency,transpired outside the scope of his official duties and therefore are not subject to presidential immunity. this argument echoes other legal precedents that have established limits on presidential immunity.



**Host:**



The judge’s ruling is attracting a lot of attention, not just for its legal implications, but also for its potential political ramifications.



**Guest:**



Absolutely. This case is unfolding as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president in 2024.A conviction in this case could considerably impact his political future. His legal troubles are already a major topic of debate within the Republican Party, and this growth likely will only amplify those discussions.





**Host:**



[Guest Name], thank you for providing such insightful analysis on this complex and developing situation. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our audience.



**Guest:**



My pleasure.It’s an important case to watch. Political discourse can be intensely heated, with strong opinions on all sides. A recent statement has ignited debate, with some advocating for an end to what they perceive as “hoaxes” to foster national unity. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans,” a spokesperson stated. This statement has triggered a range of reactions,with some applauding the call for unity and others questioning the characterization of certain issues as “hoaxes.” The debate underscores the deep divisions that exist within the country and the challenges of achieving a shared understanding of facts and truth. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. The details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a thorough report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. the details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a comprehensive report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling.
## Archyde Interview: Trump Legal Team Criticizes Judge’s Ruling in Hush Money Case





**Host:**



Welcome back to Archyde. Today we’re discussing the latest developments in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Joining us is [Guest Name],a legal analyst specializing in Constitutional Law and campaign finance.



[Guest Name], thank you for being here.





**guest:**



Thank you for having me.



**Host:**



Let’s jump right in. This week, a judge rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the hush money case against him. Could you explain the case and why this ruling is meaningful?



**Guest:**



this case revolves around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, allegedly to prevent her from disclosing an affair with Trump.Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His legal team argued that the case should be dismissed,but the judge’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed. This is significant because it means Trump will have to face these charges in court, adding another layer of complexity to his already crowded legal calendar.



**Host:**



Trump’s legal team has been vocal in its criticism of the judge, alleging that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity.



**Guest:**



that’s right. They argue that actions taken during a president’s term are covered by immunity, and that this case should be dismissed based on that principle. They also claim the Constitution itself mandates dismissal in this instance. However, the judge specifically addressed this argument, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is unrelated to Trump’s actions as president.



**Host:**



So, essentially, the judge is saying that Trump’s argument for immunity doesn’t hold up because the alleged actions in question are not part of his official presidential duties?



**Guest:**



Precisely. The judge found that these actions,even if they occurred during his presidency,transpired outside the scope of his official duties and therefore are not subject to presidential immunity. this argument echoes other legal precedents that have established limits on presidential immunity.



**Host:**



The judge’s ruling is attracting a lot of attention, not just for its legal implications, but also for its potential political ramifications.



**Guest:**



Absolutely. This case is unfolding as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president in 2024.A conviction in this case could considerably impact his political future. His legal troubles are already a major topic of debate within the Republican Party, and this growth likely will only amplify those discussions.





**Host:**



[Guest Name], thank you for providing such insightful analysis on this complex and developing situation. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our audience.



**Guest:**



My pleasure.It’s an important case to watch. In a recent statement, Cheung emphasized the need to combat what he called “hoaxes,” advocating for national unity behind President Trump. He firmly believes that embracing a unified front would be beneficial for all Americans.

“Cheung concluded his statement with a call for an end to what he termed ‘hoaxes,’ expressing his belief that national unity behind President Trump would benefit all Americans.”

Political discourse can be intensely heated, with strong opinions on all sides. A recent statement has ignited debate, with some advocating for an end to what they perceive as “hoaxes” to foster national unity. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans,” a spokesperson stated. This statement has triggered a range of reactions,with some applauding the call for unity and others questioning the characterization of certain issues as “hoaxes.” The debate underscores the deep divisions that exist within the country and the challenges of achieving a shared understanding of facts and truth. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. The details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a thorough report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. the details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a comprehensive report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling.
## Archyde Interview: Trump Legal Team Criticizes Judge’s Ruling in Hush Money Case





**Host:**



Welcome back to Archyde. Today we’re discussing the latest developments in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Joining us is [Guest Name],a legal analyst specializing in Constitutional Law and campaign finance.



[Guest Name], thank you for being here.





**guest:**



Thank you for having me.



**Host:**



Let’s jump right in. This week, a judge rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the hush money case against him. Could you explain the case and why this ruling is meaningful?



**Guest:**



this case revolves around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, allegedly to prevent her from disclosing an affair with Trump.Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His legal team argued that the case should be dismissed,but the judge’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed. This is significant because it means Trump will have to face these charges in court, adding another layer of complexity to his already crowded legal calendar.



**Host:**



Trump’s legal team has been vocal in its criticism of the judge, alleging that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity.



**Guest:**



that’s right. They argue that actions taken during a president’s term are covered by immunity, and that this case should be dismissed based on that principle. They also claim the Constitution itself mandates dismissal in this instance. However, the judge specifically addressed this argument, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is unrelated to Trump’s actions as president.



**Host:**



So, essentially, the judge is saying that Trump’s argument for immunity doesn’t hold up because the alleged actions in question are not part of his official presidential duties?



**Guest:**



Precisely. The judge found that these actions,even if they occurred during his presidency,transpired outside the scope of his official duties and therefore are not subject to presidential immunity. this argument echoes other legal precedents that have established limits on presidential immunity.



**Host:**



The judge’s ruling is attracting a lot of attention, not just for its legal implications, but also for its potential political ramifications.



**Guest:**



Absolutely. This case is unfolding as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president in 2024.A conviction in this case could considerably impact his political future. His legal troubles are already a major topic of debate within the Republican Party, and this growth likely will only amplify those discussions.





**Host:**



[Guest Name], thank you for providing such insightful analysis on this complex and developing situation. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our audience.



**Guest:**



My pleasure.It’s an important case to watch.

Last Monday, a ruling sparked controversy, with Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, immediately denouncing it as a politically driven attack. Cheung firmly asserted the case against Trump lacked merit and should be dismissed.

“The case against Trump should never have been brought,” Cheung declared vehemently,demanding its immediate dismissal. He characterized the ruling as a politically motivated attack against the former president.

This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal challenges facing Trump.

A legal battle is heating up, with strong accusations being leveled against a prominent judge. Lawyers representing former President Trump are claiming that a recent ruling by Acting Justice Merchan, who is overseeing the Manhattan District Attorney’s case, directly contradicts a Supreme Court decision regarding immunity and established legal principles.

They further argue that the Constitution mandates the dismissal of the case, asserting that Trump has a right to proceed with the Presidential Transition untroubled by what they term a “Witch Hunt.”

“Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence,” declared a representative for Trump’s legal team. He further argued that the Constitution compels the dismissal of the case, stating that Trump “must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt.”

In a recent statement, Cheung emphasized the need to combat what he called “hoaxes,” advocating for national unity behind President Trump. He firmly believes that embracing a unified front would be beneficial for all Americans.

“Cheung concluded his statement with a call for an end to what he termed ‘hoaxes,’ expressing his belief that national unity behind President Trump would benefit all Americans.”

Political discourse can be intensely heated, with strong opinions on all sides. A recent statement has ignited debate, with some advocating for an end to what they perceive as “hoaxes” to foster national unity. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans,” a spokesperson stated. This statement has triggered a range of reactions,with some applauding the call for unity and others questioning the characterization of certain issues as “hoaxes.” The debate underscores the deep divisions that exist within the country and the challenges of achieving a shared understanding of facts and truth. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. The details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a thorough report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. the details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a comprehensive report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling.
## Archyde Interview: Trump Legal Team Criticizes Judge’s Ruling in Hush Money Case





**Host:**



Welcome back to Archyde. Today we’re discussing the latest developments in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Joining us is [Guest Name],a legal analyst specializing in Constitutional Law and campaign finance.



[Guest Name], thank you for being here.





**guest:**



Thank you for having me.



**Host:**



Let’s jump right in. This week, a judge rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the hush money case against him. Could you explain the case and why this ruling is meaningful?



**Guest:**



this case revolves around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, allegedly to prevent her from disclosing an affair with Trump.Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His legal team argued that the case should be dismissed,but the judge’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed. This is significant because it means Trump will have to face these charges in court, adding another layer of complexity to his already crowded legal calendar.



**Host:**



Trump’s legal team has been vocal in its criticism of the judge, alleging that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity.



**Guest:**



that’s right. They argue that actions taken during a president’s term are covered by immunity, and that this case should be dismissed based on that principle. They also claim the Constitution itself mandates dismissal in this instance. However, the judge specifically addressed this argument, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is unrelated to Trump’s actions as president.



**Host:**



So, essentially, the judge is saying that Trump’s argument for immunity doesn’t hold up because the alleged actions in question are not part of his official presidential duties?



**Guest:**



Precisely. The judge found that these actions,even if they occurred during his presidency,transpired outside the scope of his official duties and therefore are not subject to presidential immunity. this argument echoes other legal precedents that have established limits on presidential immunity.



**Host:**



The judge’s ruling is attracting a lot of attention, not just for its legal implications, but also for its potential political ramifications.



**Guest:**



Absolutely. This case is unfolding as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president in 2024.A conviction in this case could considerably impact his political future. His legal troubles are already a major topic of debate within the Republican Party, and this growth likely will only amplify those discussions.





**Host:**



[Guest Name], thank you for providing such insightful analysis on this complex and developing situation. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our audience.



**Guest:**



My pleasure.It’s an important case to watch.

Last Monday, a ruling sparked controversy, with Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, immediately denouncing it as a politically driven attack. Cheung firmly asserted the case against Trump lacked merit and should be dismissed.

“The case against Trump should never have been brought,” Cheung declared vehemently,demanding its immediate dismissal. He characterized the ruling as a politically motivated attack against the former president.

This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal challenges facing Trump.

A legal battle is heating up, with strong accusations being leveled against a prominent judge. Lawyers representing former President Trump are claiming that a recent ruling by Acting Justice Merchan, who is overseeing the Manhattan District Attorney’s case, directly contradicts a Supreme Court decision regarding immunity and established legal principles.

They further argue that the Constitution mandates the dismissal of the case, asserting that Trump has a right to proceed with the Presidential Transition untroubled by what they term a “Witch Hunt.”

“Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence,” declared a representative for Trump’s legal team. He further argued that the Constitution compels the dismissal of the case, stating that Trump “must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt.”

In a recent statement, Cheung emphasized the need to combat what he called “hoaxes,” advocating for national unity behind President Trump. He firmly believes that embracing a unified front would be beneficial for all Americans.

“Cheung concluded his statement with a call for an end to what he termed ‘hoaxes,’ expressing his belief that national unity behind President Trump would benefit all Americans.”

Political discourse can be intensely heated, with strong opinions on all sides. A recent statement has ignited debate, with some advocating for an end to what they perceive as “hoaxes” to foster national unity. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans,” a spokesperson stated. This statement has triggered a range of reactions,with some applauding the call for unity and others questioning the characterization of certain issues as “hoaxes.” The debate underscores the deep divisions that exist within the country and the challenges of achieving a shared understanding of facts and truth. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. The details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a thorough report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. the details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a comprehensive report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling.
## Archyde Interview: Trump Legal Team Criticizes Judge’s Ruling in Hush Money Case





**Host:**



Welcome back to Archyde. Today we’re discussing the latest developments in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Joining us is [Guest Name],a legal analyst specializing in Constitutional Law and campaign finance.



[Guest Name], thank you for being here.





**guest:**



Thank you for having me.



**Host:**



Let’s jump right in. This week, a judge rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the hush money case against him. Could you explain the case and why this ruling is meaningful?



**Guest:**



this case revolves around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, allegedly to prevent her from disclosing an affair with Trump.Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His legal team argued that the case should be dismissed,but the judge’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed. This is significant because it means Trump will have to face these charges in court, adding another layer of complexity to his already crowded legal calendar.



**Host:**



Trump’s legal team has been vocal in its criticism of the judge, alleging that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity.



**Guest:**



that’s right. They argue that actions taken during a president’s term are covered by immunity, and that this case should be dismissed based on that principle. They also claim the Constitution itself mandates dismissal in this instance. However, the judge specifically addressed this argument, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is unrelated to Trump’s actions as president.



**Host:**



So, essentially, the judge is saying that Trump’s argument for immunity doesn’t hold up because the alleged actions in question are not part of his official presidential duties?



**Guest:**



Precisely. The judge found that these actions,even if they occurred during his presidency,transpired outside the scope of his official duties and therefore are not subject to presidential immunity. this argument echoes other legal precedents that have established limits on presidential immunity.



**Host:**



The judge’s ruling is attracting a lot of attention, not just for its legal implications, but also for its potential political ramifications.



**Guest:**



Absolutely. This case is unfolding as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president in 2024.A conviction in this case could considerably impact his political future. His legal troubles are already a major topic of debate within the Republican Party, and this growth likely will only amplify those discussions.





**Host:**



[Guest Name], thank you for providing such insightful analysis on this complex and developing situation. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our audience.



**Guest:**



My pleasure.It’s an important case to watch.

Last Monday, a ruling sparked controversy, with Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, immediately denouncing it as a politically driven attack. Cheung firmly asserted the case against Trump lacked merit and should be dismissed.

“The case against Trump should never have been brought,” Cheung declared vehemently,demanding its immediate dismissal. He characterized the ruling as a politically motivated attack against the former president.

This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal challenges facing Trump.

A legal battle is heating up, with strong accusations being leveled against a prominent judge. Lawyers representing former President Trump are claiming that a recent ruling by Acting Justice Merchan, who is overseeing the Manhattan District Attorney’s case, directly contradicts a Supreme Court decision regarding immunity and established legal principles.

They further argue that the Constitution mandates the dismissal of the case, asserting that Trump has a right to proceed with the Presidential Transition untroubled by what they term a “Witch Hunt.”

“Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence,” declared a representative for Trump’s legal team. He further argued that the Constitution compels the dismissal of the case, stating that Trump “must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt.”

In a recent statement, Cheung emphasized the need to combat what he called “hoaxes,” advocating for national unity behind President Trump. He firmly believes that embracing a unified front would be beneficial for all Americans.

“Cheung concluded his statement with a call for an end to what he termed ‘hoaxes,’ expressing his belief that national unity behind President Trump would benefit all Americans.”

Political discourse can be intensely heated, with strong opinions on all sides. A recent statement has ignited debate, with some advocating for an end to what they perceive as “hoaxes” to foster national unity. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans,” a spokesperson stated. This statement has triggered a range of reactions,with some applauding the call for unity and others questioning the characterization of certain issues as “hoaxes.” The debate underscores the deep divisions that exist within the country and the challenges of achieving a shared understanding of facts and truth. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. The details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a thorough report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. the details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a comprehensive report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling.
## Archyde Interview: Trump Legal Team Criticizes Judge’s Ruling in Hush Money Case





**Host:**



Welcome back to Archyde. Today we’re discussing the latest developments in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Joining us is [Guest Name],a legal analyst specializing in Constitutional Law and campaign finance.



[Guest Name], thank you for being here.





**guest:**



Thank you for having me.



**Host:**



Let’s jump right in. This week, a judge rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the hush money case against him. Could you explain the case and why this ruling is meaningful?



**Guest:**



this case revolves around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, allegedly to prevent her from disclosing an affair with Trump.Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His legal team argued that the case should be dismissed,but the judge’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed. This is significant because it means Trump will have to face these charges in court, adding another layer of complexity to his already crowded legal calendar.



**Host:**



Trump’s legal team has been vocal in its criticism of the judge, alleging that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity.



**Guest:**



that’s right. They argue that actions taken during a president’s term are covered by immunity, and that this case should be dismissed based on that principle. They also claim the Constitution itself mandates dismissal in this instance. However, the judge specifically addressed this argument, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is unrelated to Trump’s actions as president.



**Host:**



So, essentially, the judge is saying that Trump’s argument for immunity doesn’t hold up because the alleged actions in question are not part of his official presidential duties?



**Guest:**



Precisely. The judge found that these actions,even if they occurred during his presidency,transpired outside the scope of his official duties and therefore are not subject to presidential immunity. this argument echoes other legal precedents that have established limits on presidential immunity.



**Host:**



The judge’s ruling is attracting a lot of attention, not just for its legal implications, but also for its potential political ramifications.



**Guest:**



Absolutely. This case is unfolding as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president in 2024.A conviction in this case could considerably impact his political future. His legal troubles are already a major topic of debate within the Republican Party, and this growth likely will only amplify those discussions.





**Host:**



[Guest Name], thank you for providing such insightful analysis on this complex and developing situation. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our audience.



**Guest:**



My pleasure.It’s an important case to watch.

The political landscape is ablaze as former President Donald trump’s legal team vehemently criticizes a recent court decision. They allege that this ruling disregards long-standing legal norms and seeks to obstruct Trump’s potential return to the White House.

“This is a clear violation of established legal precedents,” a spokesperson for Trump asserted.“We believe this ruling is designed to impede President Trump’s ability to reclaim his rightful place in the Oval Office.”

the court’s decision has ignited a firestorm of controversy, with Trump’s supporters rallying behind his claims of judicial overreach. The future implications of this ruling remain uncertain, leaving many to speculate about its impact on the upcoming political landscape.

Last Monday, a ruling sparked controversy, with Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, immediately denouncing it as a politically driven attack. Cheung firmly asserted the case against Trump lacked merit and should be dismissed.

“The case against Trump should never have been brought,” Cheung declared vehemently,demanding its immediate dismissal. He characterized the ruling as a politically motivated attack against the former president.

This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal challenges facing Trump.

A legal battle is heating up, with strong accusations being leveled against a prominent judge. Lawyers representing former President Trump are claiming that a recent ruling by Acting Justice Merchan, who is overseeing the Manhattan District Attorney’s case, directly contradicts a Supreme Court decision regarding immunity and established legal principles.

They further argue that the Constitution mandates the dismissal of the case, asserting that Trump has a right to proceed with the Presidential Transition untroubled by what they term a “Witch Hunt.”

“Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence,” declared a representative for Trump’s legal team. He further argued that the Constitution compels the dismissal of the case, stating that Trump “must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt.”

In a recent statement, Cheung emphasized the need to combat what he called “hoaxes,” advocating for national unity behind President Trump. He firmly believes that embracing a unified front would be beneficial for all Americans.

“Cheung concluded his statement with a call for an end to what he termed ‘hoaxes,’ expressing his belief that national unity behind President Trump would benefit all Americans.”

Political discourse can be intensely heated, with strong opinions on all sides. A recent statement has ignited debate, with some advocating for an end to what they perceive as “hoaxes” to foster national unity. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans,” a spokesperson stated. This statement has triggered a range of reactions,with some applauding the call for unity and others questioning the characterization of certain issues as “hoaxes.” The debate underscores the deep divisions that exist within the country and the challenges of achieving a shared understanding of facts and truth. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. The details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a thorough report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. the details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a comprehensive report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling.
## Archyde Interview: Trump Legal Team Criticizes Judge’s Ruling in Hush Money Case





**Host:**



Welcome back to Archyde. Today we’re discussing the latest developments in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Joining us is [Guest Name],a legal analyst specializing in Constitutional Law and campaign finance.



[Guest Name], thank you for being here.





**guest:**



Thank you for having me.



**Host:**



Let’s jump right in. This week, a judge rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the hush money case against him. Could you explain the case and why this ruling is meaningful?



**Guest:**



this case revolves around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, allegedly to prevent her from disclosing an affair with Trump.Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His legal team argued that the case should be dismissed,but the judge’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed. This is significant because it means Trump will have to face these charges in court, adding another layer of complexity to his already crowded legal calendar.



**Host:**



Trump’s legal team has been vocal in its criticism of the judge, alleging that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity.



**Guest:**



that’s right. They argue that actions taken during a president’s term are covered by immunity, and that this case should be dismissed based on that principle. They also claim the Constitution itself mandates dismissal in this instance. However, the judge specifically addressed this argument, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is unrelated to Trump’s actions as president.



**Host:**



So, essentially, the judge is saying that Trump’s argument for immunity doesn’t hold up because the alleged actions in question are not part of his official presidential duties?



**Guest:**



Precisely. The judge found that these actions,even if they occurred during his presidency,transpired outside the scope of his official duties and therefore are not subject to presidential immunity. this argument echoes other legal precedents that have established limits on presidential immunity.



**Host:**



The judge’s ruling is attracting a lot of attention, not just for its legal implications, but also for its potential political ramifications.



**Guest:**



Absolutely. This case is unfolding as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president in 2024.A conviction in this case could considerably impact his political future. His legal troubles are already a major topic of debate within the Republican Party, and this growth likely will only amplify those discussions.





**Host:**



[Guest Name], thank you for providing such insightful analysis on this complex and developing situation. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our audience.



**Guest:**



My pleasure.It’s an important case to watch.

The political landscape is ablaze as former President Donald trump’s legal team vehemently criticizes a recent court decision. They allege that this ruling disregards long-standing legal norms and seeks to obstruct Trump’s potential return to the White House.

“This is a clear violation of established legal precedents,” a spokesperson for Trump asserted.“We believe this ruling is designed to impede President Trump’s ability to reclaim his rightful place in the Oval Office.”

the court’s decision has ignited a firestorm of controversy, with Trump’s supporters rallying behind his claims of judicial overreach. The future implications of this ruling remain uncertain, leaving many to speculate about its impact on the upcoming political landscape.

Last Monday, a ruling sparked controversy, with Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, immediately denouncing it as a politically driven attack. Cheung firmly asserted the case against Trump lacked merit and should be dismissed.

“The case against Trump should never have been brought,” Cheung declared vehemently,demanding its immediate dismissal. He characterized the ruling as a politically motivated attack against the former president.

This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal challenges facing Trump.

A legal battle is heating up, with strong accusations being leveled against a prominent judge. Lawyers representing former President Trump are claiming that a recent ruling by Acting Justice Merchan, who is overseeing the Manhattan District Attorney’s case, directly contradicts a Supreme Court decision regarding immunity and established legal principles.

They further argue that the Constitution mandates the dismissal of the case, asserting that Trump has a right to proceed with the Presidential Transition untroubled by what they term a “Witch Hunt.”

“Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence,” declared a representative for Trump’s legal team. He further argued that the Constitution compels the dismissal of the case, stating that Trump “must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt.”

In a recent statement, Cheung emphasized the need to combat what he called “hoaxes,” advocating for national unity behind President Trump. He firmly believes that embracing a unified front would be beneficial for all Americans.

“Cheung concluded his statement with a call for an end to what he termed ‘hoaxes,’ expressing his belief that national unity behind President Trump would benefit all Americans.”

Political discourse can be intensely heated, with strong opinions on all sides. A recent statement has ignited debate, with some advocating for an end to what they perceive as “hoaxes” to foster national unity. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans,” a spokesperson stated. This statement has triggered a range of reactions,with some applauding the call for unity and others questioning the characterization of certain issues as “hoaxes.” The debate underscores the deep divisions that exist within the country and the challenges of achieving a shared understanding of facts and truth. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. The details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a thorough report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. the details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a comprehensive report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling.
## Archyde Interview: Trump Legal Team Criticizes Judge’s Ruling in Hush Money Case





**Host:**



Welcome back to Archyde. Today we’re discussing the latest developments in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Joining us is [Guest Name],a legal analyst specializing in Constitutional Law and campaign finance.



[Guest Name], thank you for being here.





**guest:**



Thank you for having me.



**Host:**



Let’s jump right in. This week, a judge rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the hush money case against him. Could you explain the case and why this ruling is meaningful?



**Guest:**



this case revolves around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, allegedly to prevent her from disclosing an affair with Trump.Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His legal team argued that the case should be dismissed,but the judge’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed. This is significant because it means Trump will have to face these charges in court, adding another layer of complexity to his already crowded legal calendar.



**Host:**



Trump’s legal team has been vocal in its criticism of the judge, alleging that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity.



**Guest:**



that’s right. They argue that actions taken during a president’s term are covered by immunity, and that this case should be dismissed based on that principle. They also claim the Constitution itself mandates dismissal in this instance. However, the judge specifically addressed this argument, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is unrelated to Trump’s actions as president.



**Host:**



So, essentially, the judge is saying that Trump’s argument for immunity doesn’t hold up because the alleged actions in question are not part of his official presidential duties?



**Guest:**



Precisely. The judge found that these actions,even if they occurred during his presidency,transpired outside the scope of his official duties and therefore are not subject to presidential immunity. this argument echoes other legal precedents that have established limits on presidential immunity.



**Host:**



The judge’s ruling is attracting a lot of attention, not just for its legal implications, but also for its potential political ramifications.



**Guest:**



Absolutely. This case is unfolding as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president in 2024.A conviction in this case could considerably impact his political future. His legal troubles are already a major topic of debate within the Republican Party, and this growth likely will only amplify those discussions.





**Host:**



[Guest Name], thank you for providing such insightful analysis on this complex and developing situation. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our audience.



**Guest:**



My pleasure.It’s an important case to watch.

The political landscape is ablaze as former President Donald trump’s legal team vehemently criticizes a recent court decision. They allege that this ruling disregards long-standing legal norms and seeks to obstruct Trump’s potential return to the White House.

“This is a clear violation of established legal precedents,” a spokesperson for Trump asserted.“We believe this ruling is designed to impede President Trump’s ability to reclaim his rightful place in the Oval Office.”

the court’s decision has ignited a firestorm of controversy, with Trump’s supporters rallying behind his claims of judicial overreach. The future implications of this ruling remain uncertain, leaving many to speculate about its impact on the upcoming political landscape.

Last Monday, a ruling sparked controversy, with Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, immediately denouncing it as a politically driven attack. Cheung firmly asserted the case against Trump lacked merit and should be dismissed.

“The case against Trump should never have been brought,” Cheung declared vehemently,demanding its immediate dismissal. He characterized the ruling as a politically motivated attack against the former president.

This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal challenges facing Trump.

A legal battle is heating up, with strong accusations being leveled against a prominent judge. Lawyers representing former President Trump are claiming that a recent ruling by Acting Justice Merchan, who is overseeing the Manhattan District Attorney’s case, directly contradicts a Supreme Court decision regarding immunity and established legal principles.

They further argue that the Constitution mandates the dismissal of the case, asserting that Trump has a right to proceed with the Presidential Transition untroubled by what they term a “Witch Hunt.”

“Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence,” declared a representative for Trump’s legal team. He further argued that the Constitution compels the dismissal of the case, stating that Trump “must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process, and execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this, or any other, Witch Hunt.”

In a recent statement, Cheung emphasized the need to combat what he called “hoaxes,” advocating for national unity behind President Trump. He firmly believes that embracing a unified front would be beneficial for all Americans.

“Cheung concluded his statement with a call for an end to what he termed ‘hoaxes,’ expressing his belief that national unity behind President Trump would benefit all Americans.”

Political discourse can be intensely heated, with strong opinions on all sides. A recent statement has ignited debate, with some advocating for an end to what they perceive as “hoaxes” to foster national unity. “The sooner these hoaxes end, the sooner our country can unite behind President Trump for the betterment of all Americans,” a spokesperson stated. This statement has triggered a range of reactions,with some applauding the call for unity and others questioning the characterization of certain issues as “hoaxes.” The debate underscores the deep divisions that exist within the country and the challenges of achieving a shared understanding of facts and truth. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. The details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a thorough report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling. New York Judge Juan Merchan delivered a significant ruling on December 16, 2024, impacting former President Donald Trump’s legal standing. the details of the ruling, which has garnered considerable attention, can be explored further in a comprehensive report by CNN. Read more about Merchan’s ruling.
## Archyde Interview: Trump Legal Team Criticizes Judge’s Ruling in Hush Money Case





**Host:**



Welcome back to Archyde. Today we’re discussing the latest developments in the legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump. Joining us is [Guest Name],a legal analyst specializing in Constitutional Law and campaign finance.



[Guest Name], thank you for being here.





**guest:**



Thank you for having me.



**Host:**



Let’s jump right in. This week, a judge rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the hush money case against him. Could you explain the case and why this ruling is meaningful?



**Guest:**



this case revolves around payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels, allegedly to prevent her from disclosing an affair with Trump.Trump denies any wrongdoing and maintains the payments were legal. His legal team argued that the case should be dismissed,but the judge’s ruling paves the way for the trial to proceed. This is significant because it means Trump will have to face these charges in court, adding another layer of complexity to his already crowded legal calendar.



**Host:**



Trump’s legal team has been vocal in its criticism of the judge, alleging that the ruling contradicts Supreme Court precedents on presidential immunity.



**Guest:**



that’s right. They argue that actions taken during a president’s term are covered by immunity, and that this case should be dismissed based on that principle. They also claim the Constitution itself mandates dismissal in this instance. However, the judge specifically addressed this argument, stating that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is unrelated to Trump’s actions as president.



**Host:**



So, essentially, the judge is saying that Trump’s argument for immunity doesn’t hold up because the alleged actions in question are not part of his official presidential duties?



**Guest:**



Precisely. The judge found that these actions,even if they occurred during his presidency,transpired outside the scope of his official duties and therefore are not subject to presidential immunity. this argument echoes other legal precedents that have established limits on presidential immunity.



**Host:**



The judge’s ruling is attracting a lot of attention, not just for its legal implications, but also for its potential political ramifications.



**Guest:**



Absolutely. This case is unfolding as Trump seeks the Republican nomination for president in 2024.A conviction in this case could considerably impact his political future. His legal troubles are already a major topic of debate within the Republican Party, and this growth likely will only amplify those discussions.





**Host:**



[Guest Name], thank you for providing such insightful analysis on this complex and developing situation. We appreciate you sharing your expertise with our audience.



**Guest:**



My pleasure.It’s an important case to watch.