'Round and round we go': Analysts say Trump waived presidential immunity in N.Y. trial

Former President Donald Trump on Monday sought to delay the New York election interference trial, which deals with the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, by claiming "presidential immunity."

But legal analysts on social media after the filing pointed out Trump has already waived his right to claim such protection.

"Trump is trying to avoid going to trial in Manhattan on 3/25, trying to tie the case up in a presidential immunity argument," said former prosecutor Joyce Vance, who now teaches at the University of Alabama Law School.

"But none of the conduct here involves the presidency; it's about the campaign and his private business. And in any event, Trump waived immunity as Judge [Alvin] Hellerstein found in an opinion last July that Trump dismissed his appeal on. Here's the July order from Judge Hellerstein noting Trump waived presidential immunity. Although Trump initially appealed, he subsequently dismissed that appeal."

Norm Eisen, who served as Democratic counsel during the first attempt to impeach Trump, agreed with Vance's assessment, quoting Hellerstein. Trump "has expressly waived any argument premised on a theory of absolute presidential immunity," he wrote.

"Only one problem, he already tried & lost & he’s collaterally estopped," explained Eisen in a thread. "It won't work."

"As a reminder, Hellerstein found that immunity does NOT apply because the alleged campaign corruption and cover-up were purely personal and political. It had nothing to do with Trump’s official duties — this is an even bigger stretch than what is happening in the federal Jack Smith case. The claim is absurd."

Trump makes another claim at the end of the brief, Eisen pointed out. Trump says that there might be evidence in the case that should be kept out.

ALSO READ: Two Trump legal lifelines are tilting Election 2024 in Donald's favor

"First," continues Eisen, "that’s no reason to delay the case; the judge can make those evidentiary rulings one by one. Second, the fact that Trump previously waived absolute immunity may affect or waive some of those determinations. Third, some of these arguments about how personal or political public communications are supposedly rendered inadmissible are, again, just absurd This case can be proven without getting into official acts."

Unlike in the federal documents case, there were no national security implications in the hush money payments to the woman with whom he had an extra-marital affair.

"Round and round we go," replied National Public Radio justice reporter Carrie Johnson.

"Trump now arguing that a cover-up and fraud of election interference he conducts with his private business is an official act of the President," quipped national security expert Marcy Wheeler.