President-elect Donald Trump’s attorneys argued that both presidents and presidents-elect receive immunity.
President-elect Donald Trump’s attorneys argued on Nov. 19 that New York Justice Juan Merchan should dismiss the ongoing case against their client, arguing that doing so was required by federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
The letter was the latest in a series of moves by Merchan and attorneys following the 2024 presidential election, which has thrown a wrench in Trump’s federal cases and cast serious doubt over whether Trump’s state-based cases can continue once he enters office.
Trump has asked Merchan to throw out the prosecution and guilty verdict he received in May. One of his primary arguments is that the concept of presidential immunity, as outlined by the Supreme Court this summer, meant that the prosecution’s use of certain evidence and testimony was unconstitutional.
Merchan was expected to rule on Trump’s immunity arguments after the election but postponed a decision after a request for a stay in proceedings. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said on Nov. 19 that it supported postponing sentencing, which had been scheduled for Nov. 26, but maintained that Trump’s arguments were incorrect.
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Trump v. United States established that presidents have varying levels of immunity from criminal prosecution.
Trump’s attorneys argued on Nov. 19 that “just as a sitting President is completely immune from any criminal process, so too is President Trump as President-elect.”
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Original News Source Link – Epoch Times
Running For Office? Conservative Campaign Consulting – Election Day Strategies!