Judge denies Trump's 'presidential immunity' claim in criminal hush-money case
Judge Juan Merchan has denied Donald Trump's latest claim of presidential immunity.
The New York election interference case about the hush money scheme involving Stormy Daniels may have unfolded before Trump was elected to the White House, but since he wrote the check reimbursing Michel Cohen while in the White House, he contends presidential immunity protects him.
"This Court finds that Defendant had myriad of opportunities to raise the claim of presidential immunity well before March 7, 2024. Defendant could have done so in his omnibus motions on September 29, 2023, which he filed a mere six days before he briefed the same issue in his Federal Insurrection Matter and several months after he brought his motion for removal to federal court on May 4, 2023," wrote the judge.
Trump went to Merchan after the Supreme Court said that it would take up his immunity case and said he should delay the trial until the High Court rules on that case. The judge wasn't buying it.
Merchan said Trump could have expanded on the topic in any motions prior to the deadlines in this case and did not.
In talking about why the defendant waited so long, Merchan continues that Trump failed to explain why he "passed the statutory period allotted. The Defendant had ample notice that the people were in possession of and intended the use various statements allegedly made by the Defendant on social media in public and in various interviews. He was also well aware that defense of presidential immunity, even if unsuccessful, might be available to him."
Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace after the news broke, legal analyst Lisa Rubin explained that Trump did try and litigate something similar to this when the case first began and he tried to move it from Manhattan to federal court at the Southern District of New York. In that instance, Trump's lawyers argued that he was entitled to it because he was a federal office holder, and thus should be argued on federal grounds.
"That failed," Rubin said. "The judge saying that was laughable. So, he's known, at least with respect to that case, that the argument's been dead for a long time, nevertheless, trying to delay the inevitable, as you said."
See the conversation below or at the link here.
Leave a Comment
Related Post