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 Legal Analyst Jane Roberts on Supreme Court Ruling and Trump’s Legal Immunity**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Jane. Let’s dive right in. The recent ruling by the US Supreme Court grants Donald Trump legal immunity from prosecution for offenses committed while he was president. What are the implications of this decision?
**Jane Roberts:** Thank you for having me. This ruling essentially sets a precedent that former presidents may have a certain level of legal protection concerning actions they took while in office. It raises questions about accountability and could impact future cases involving a sitting or former president.
**Editor:** You mentioned accountability. How does this ruling affect ongoing cases, particularly the bribery case involving Stormy Daniels, where Trump allegedly paid $130,000 to silence her during the 2016 campaign?
**Jane Roberts:** The ruling complicates matters significantly. While the Supreme Court decided that evidence gathered while Trump was president can’t be used against him, the nuances around the bribe’s timing are crucial. Since the payment occurred before he took office, the court’s decision might not fully shield him from scrutiny regarding actions leading up to the presidency.
**Editor:** That’s an interesting point. What about the specifics of the allegations against Trump related to the falsification of documents and the violation of the Accounting Act? Does the immunity extend to these charges?
**Jane Roberts:** Not necessarily. The immunity ruling suggests he has protection from certain legal actions while in office, but the charges related to falsifying documents he allegedly committed during or following the campaign could still be pursued. The courts will have to address whether any action that occurred pre-presidency falls under this protective umbrella.
**Editor:** So, the distinction of time is crucial here. What do you think will happen next in this legal saga?
**Jane Roberts:** I expect attorneys for both sides to carefully analyze the ruling and possibly challenge or refine the scope of Trump’s immunity. There may also be motions filed seeking clarification on what constitutes presidential actions. The coming months will be pivotal in shaping the outcomes of these ongoing legal battles.
**Editor:** Thanks for your insights, Jane. It’s definitely a complex situation that will keep many watching closely.
**Jane Roberts:** Thank you! It’s certainly a developing story with significant implications for the legal landscape surrounding presidential actions.
