Trump’s Bid to Shift Hush Money Case to Federal Court Denied as ‘Deficient’

Former President Donald Trump’s request for his hush money case to be moved to federal court was declined on Friday, as confirmed by a notice in the court docket. The court labeled the filing as “deficient” since Trump’s legal team failed to include the necessary written consent from the court or prosecutors.

The notice highlighted several issues with the filing, stating that the attached PDF was incorrect, the filing utilized the wrong event type, and the required permission to file was not included. These points were communicated to Trump’s attorney, Emil Bove.

Just a day earlier, Trump’s attorneys had submitted a plea to the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, asking for control of the case as it approaches sentencing next month. They argued that the state’s prosecution infringed upon Trump’s constitutional rights and overlooked a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning presidential immunity.

In May, Trump made history by becoming the first sitting or former president to be convicted in a criminal trial. A jury in New York found him guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records, related to an alleged affair with an adult film star during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Steven Cheung, the communications director for Trump’s campaign, commented on the situation via an email to The Hill. He indicated that the filing has yet to be ruled upon by a judge and characterized the response from the clerk’s office as a standard procedural request for the legal team to follow specific filing formats. He reassured that they are working to ensure proper submission in the electronic system.

Attorney Todd Blanche directed inquiries to the statement issued by the Trump campaign.

Additionally, Trump’s legal team is seeking to postpone the sentencing, which is currently set for September 18, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. In early July, the high court determined that significant presidential powers are shielded from criminal prosecution, a decision viewed as advantageous for Trump.

In light of this ruling, Trump has requested Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the hush money case, to vacate the guilty verdict. While Trump has not claimed immunity from the specific 34 counts, he asserts that the conviction should be annulled due to certain evidence being classified as “official acts” which should not have been presented to the jury.

The Hill has sought further comment from attorney Emil Bove regarding the latest developments.

As the case proceeds, the unfolding legal battles represent not just the struggle of a former president concerning criminal allegations, but also highlight broader questions surrounding the interplay between presidential powers and the criminal justice system.

As the September sentencing date approaches, the potential implications for Trump and the political landscape remain to be seen, particularly in light of the ongoing discussions regarding presidential immunity and how it will influence future legal challenges faced by political figures.

This unfolding legal saga adds another layer to Trump’s already complex political narrative, creating a highly charged atmosphere as his team navigates the judicial process while also preparing for possible implications in the upcoming election cycle.

Source: The Hill