Prosecutors urge judge not to toss out Trump’s 'hush money' conviction

Prosecutors are urging a judge to uphold Donald Trump's historic "hush money" conviction, arguing in court papers made public that the verdict should stand despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity.

In a court filing dated July 24 and made public on Thursday, the prosecutors said the Supreme Court's ruling had no bearing on their case, which stemmed from "hush money" paid.

"There is no basis for disturbing the jury's verdict," prosecutors wrote in a 66-page filing.

"All of the evidence that he complains of either concerned wholly unofficial conduct, or, at most, official conduct for which any presumption of immunity has been rebutted."

Lawyers for the Republican presidential nominee are trying to get the verdict — and even the indictment — tossed out because of the Supreme Court's decision on July 1.

Trump's lawyers have argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's view on presidential immunity and that the trial was "tainted" by evidence that should not have been allowed under the high court's ruling, such as tweets that Trump sent while he was president in 2018.

Prosecutors countered that evidence, which they said was indicative of a "pressure campaign" to keep his then-lawyer Michael Cohen from turning on him.

The Supreme Court ruled about a month after a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a deal to pay off Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.

'Hamstring'

Judge Juan M. Merchan said he would rule on September 6 regarding Trump's request to overturn the verdict and dismiss the indictment. The judge has set Trump's sentencing for September 18 "if such is still necessary."

The sentencing, which carries the potential for anything from probation to up to four years in prison, was initially set for mid-July. But within hours of the Supreme Court's ruling, Trump's lawyers asked for a delay. Merchan soon pushed the sentencing back to consider their immunity arguments.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not define what constitutes an official act, leaving that matter to lower courts.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the Constitution does not require juries to be blinded "to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which presidents can be held liable" and suggested that it would needlessly "hamstring" a prosecutor's case to prohibit any mention of an official act in question.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, Trump's lawyers brought up presidential immunity in a failed bid last year to get the "hush money" case moved from state court to federal court.

Trump's lawyers never raised presidential immunity as a defence in the "hush money" trial, but they tried unsuccessfully to prevent prosecutors from showing the jury evidence from his time in office.

Trump’s lawyers argue that presidential immunity should have ruled out some testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks and another aide, as well as some documents, including Trump’s 2018 financial disclosure report.