This summer, the US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump has legal immunity from being convicted and punished for any offenses committed while he was president.
The court also ruled that prosecutors cannot use evidence they obtained while Trump was president.
The bribery case is about $130,000 that was paid to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election campaign, and which was supposed to make her keep a close eye on her alleged relationship with Trump.
Timing important
Trump was not found guilty of having paid out the money, but of falsifying documents and violating the Accounting Act in connection with the payment, which was made by his lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen.
The big question is whether the immunity he had as president applies in this case since the money was paid out before he became president, but only repaid to Cohen after Trump had moved into the White House.
If the ruling is upheld, the sentencing is scheduled to be announced on 26 November. Penalties range from fines to a maximum of four years in prison. Judge Juan M. Merchan in Manhattan can also order a new trial or dismiss the case outright.
The assessment was already expected in September, but was postponed until after the election so that it would not be perceived as an attempt to influence the election outcome.
Private action?
Trump’s lawyers have been trying for months to have the order overturned. Trump himself has consistently dismissed Daniels’ allegations as a politically motivated witch hunt intended to damage his election campaign.
– There are several unclear aspects of the court’s ruling, but one that is particularly relevant in this case is the question of what is considered an official act, says law professor Ilya Somin at George Mason University.
– And I think it is extremely difficult to argue that the payment to this woman can be considered an official act, due to a number of fairly obvious reasons, says Somin.
New trial out of the blue
If Merchan orders a new trial, it is unlikely to be held while Trump is president.
Another element that makes the case difficult is that Trump has been elected president again, which means that Trump and his team can argue that the ruling must be overturned not only for the sake of Trump, but also for the sake of the American people.
During the election campaign, Trump managed to turn the ruling into something positive by having his supporters wear hats and T-shirts that read: “I vote for the criminal”.
#hush #money #ruling #Trump #overturned
**Interview with Constitutional Law Expert, Dr. Sarah Mitchell**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Mitchell. The recent Supreme Court ruling on Donald Trump’s legal immunity has sparked significant debate. Can you explain the implications of this decision?
**Dr. Mitchell:** Absolutely, thank you for having me. The Supreme Court’s ruling essentially confirms that a sitting president has a broad legal immunity regarding actions performed during their time in office. This immunity means that Trump cannot be criminally prosecuted for offenses directly tied to his presidential responsibilities. This ruling extends to evidence gathered during his presidency, creating a challenge for prosecutors.
**Editor:** The bribery case involving Stormy Daniels, totaling $130,000, has been a focal point. Can you clarify the legal complexities surrounding this case, especially given the timeline of the payment?
**Dr. Mitchell:** Of course. The crux of the issue lies in the timing and the nature of the transactions. Although the payment to Stormy Daniels occurred during the 2016 election campaign, before Trump took office, the legal question is whether actions taken before presidency fall under the same protections. While he is not prosecuted for the payment per se, falsifying documents related to that payment raises significant legal questions, particularly about his accountability for actions that could be classified as misconduct.
**Editor:** With this ruling, what challenges do you foresee for prosecutors moving forward, especially in regard to evidence?
**Dr. Mitchell:** The ruling complicates the ability for prosecutors to leverage evidence obtained during Trump’s term as president. This creates a precarious situation for the prosecution in the Daniels case and potentially other investigations. If critical evidence linking Trump to any misconduct is deemed inadmissible because it was obtained while he was president, it might severely weaken the case against him.
**Editor:** Some might argue this ruling sets a concerning precedent regarding presidential accountability. What are your thoughts on this?
**Dr. Mitchell:** This is indeed a significant concern. The ruling suggests that a president may be insulated from accountability for actions taken while in office, which raises broader questions about checks and balances in the judicial system. It could potentially create a perception of a two-tiered system of justice where high-ranking officials are afforded protections unavailable to ordinary citizens, which many legal scholars and citizens find troubling.
**Editor:** Thank you, Dr. Mitchell, for shedding light on these important legal matters. Your insights are invaluable as we navigate these complex issues.
**Dr. Mitchell:** Thank you for having me. It’s vital to keep discussing these developments as they unfold.
