President Donald Trump’s politically motivated “hush money” conviction in New York is in jeopardy after the Supreme Court’s bombshell immunity ruling, according to a legal expert.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump relied on evidence that should never have been allowed under the court’s immunity precedent.
The issue with Bragg’s evidence was explained by top defense lawyer David W. Fischer in a column on Julie Kelly’s Substack.
The Democrat judge overseeing the case, Juan Merchan, will rule on Trump’s motion to dismiss the conviction in September.
Merchan will rule just two days before Trump’s sentencing.
Trump’s request is based on the Supreme Court’s immunity decision.
The SCOTUS ruled that a president’s “official acts” cannot be prosecuted or used as evidence.
Merchan, a Biden donor, has consistently ruled against Trump.
Many expect Merchan’s anti-Trump pattern to continue when the judge decides on the 45th president’s motion in September.
However, even if Merchan shuts Trump down on immunity, Trump’s sentencing will likely be postponed so he can appeal, Fischer argued.
Bragg can see the writing on the wall, too.
“That’s the reason why Bragg did not oppose Trump’s request to delay his September sentencing date until after the November election,” Fischer wrote.
“Assuming Trump is re-elected, the New York case will evaporate, either through the appellate or political process,” he added.
The Supreme Court explained in its immunity ruling that presidents cannot be probed over their official acts, as it would expose their authority to dangerous “intrusion.”
However, Bragg’s prosecution of Trump relied heavily on testimony from Trump’s former White House staffer Hope Hicks.
DA Bragg also produced other “evidence” that fell within the “outer perimeter” of Trump’s presidential duties, Fischer said.
Bragg has dismissed the inclusion of his evidence as a “harmless error,” meanwhile.
Yet, Trump’s lawyers argue the error was a much more significant one that corrupted the trial.
Last month, Trump’s lawyers wrote:
“Because of the implications for the institution of the Presidency, the use of official-acts evidence was a structural error under the federal Constitution that tainted [the District Attorney’s] grand jury proceedings as well as the trial.”
The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling has already placed Trump’s Jan. 6 case in limbo.
A separate classified documents case was also tossed by the judge.
Another criminal case in Georgia has been delayed indefinitely by the prosecutor’s own misconduct.
Democrats, and Kamala Harris in particular, have been left clinging to the flimsy New York “hush money” conviction to label Trump a “convicted felon.”
READ MORE – Former Prosecutor Reveals Trump Could Delay ‘Hush Money’ Sentencing ‘Forever’
