NEW YORK - President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit Monday against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchant, alleging that the judge denied Trump's request to block a financial ruling in New York. The filings come after a Commerce judge earlier Monday denied Trump's request to stay Commerce's order scheduled for Friday.
Trump's lawyers filed the lawsuit, called a Section 78 motion, in the First Department of the New York Court of Appeals. Trump's lawyers argued in the lawsuit that Judge Murchin denied Trump's guarantee of immunity in his ruling last week and ordered Trump to appear in person after his May ruling on Jan. 10 overstepped his authority.
Trump was convicted in May of falsifying business records related to his payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels to promote his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election. In denying Trump’s request for a stay of execution, Murcha wrote: “This court has considered the plaintiff’s arguments in support of his motion and finds that they consist largely of repetitive arguments that he has made many times in the past.”
“Furthermore, this court finds that the authorities relied on by defendants in their current motions differ from the true or false information,” Mercian wrote. Trump’s lawyers, who asked for the Traders to stay their sentences, argued that the Traders “will not be entitled to a conviction” because Trump is still seeking the Supreme Court’s decision to block the Hush money lawsuit in New York.
"Once the court rules that his immunity will continue, the President will be able to continue to defend his criminal case — perhaps through a trial or, more likely, through conviction and sentencing — essentially forcing the President to explain his decision in court before he is ultimately ruled immune," defense attorneys Todd Branch and Emile Bove wrote. Investors initially scheduled the decision for July 11 but delayed it to assess whether Trump's decision was affected by the Supreme Court's July decision to impeach the president, who was working while he was still working. The investors later concluded that Trump's decision "could lead to unlawful conduct" and that "there is no danger of violating the law or the group's leader's work."
The Manhattan district attorney urged Merchants to reject Trump’s request, arguing in a filing Monday that the court had gone to “excessive lengths” to allow Trump to protect the president.
Bragg rejected Trump’s argument that his objection meant the silent investigation no longer had the authority to proceed. “A defendant’s notice of appeal to the Supreme Court does not deprive the court of jurisdiction or remain pending before this court,” Bragg said in the lawsuit. The lawyers argued that Trump’s lawyers failed to meet the “specific performance” they requested to delay the entire appeal and that the delay was largely Trump’s doing.
“The defendant’s repeated request for a postponement of sentencing to July 11, 2024 has expired; he should no longer hear from those who have suffered harm as a result of his delay,” the lawsuit said. The district attorney said Trump’s Jan. 10 order would not affect his performance of his duties because they were “responsibilities he would not have before January 20, 2025.”
“By definition, the President-elect is not yet the President. Therefore, the President-elect does not perform any duties under Article II of the Constitution, and there is no work under Article II that the law would require to interfere with the President,” the document says.
Traders said last week that they would seek Trump’s unconditional release by undermining his record, and that would strike a balance between the duties of the presidency and the sanctity of the jury. Trump’s lawyers said Monday that the charges were without merit. “The court has not yet made clear its intent to suspend unconditionally. While there is no doubt that the case is being suppressed, no jurisdiction should be taken, and no more just sentence can be given at this time.” “Furthermore, a sentence imposed on a series of constitutional errors, including those that directly impact President Trump’s defense of the presidency that will be addressed in future appeals, would be inappropriate,” the lawyer wrote in a filing on Monday. Trump, who will take office on Jan. 20, also argued that the decision would impede his transition from presidency and “threaten the functioning of See More........
0 Comments