NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump asked a federal court late Thursday to intervene in his New York criminal bribery case, seeking a way to overturn his felony conviction and indefinitely delay his sentencing next month.
Lawyers for the current Republican candidate have asked the Manhattan federal court to take over the state court where he was tried, arguing that the historic prosecution violates his constitutional rights and runs counter to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.
Trump’s lawyers, who failed last year in their preliminary attempt to move the case to federal court, said moving it now would give him an “impartial forum, free from local hostility” to address the issues. In state court, they said, Trump was subjected to “bias, conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety.”
If the case goes to federal court, Trump’s lawyers have said they will seek to overturn the verdict and have the case dismissed on immunity grounds.
If the case remains in state court and Trump’s sentencing goes ahead as scheduled on Sept. 18 — about seven weeks before Election Day — it would constitute election interference, his lawyers said, raising concerns that Trump could be sent to prison just as early voting begins.
“The ongoing proceedings will continue to cause direct and irreparable harm to President Trump – the leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election – and to voters far beyond Manhattan,” Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote in a 64-page filing in U.S. District Court.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted Trump and opposed his previous attempt to move the case out of state court, declined to comment. A message seeking comment was left with a spokesperson for the New York state court system.
In May, Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 cash payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to disrupt his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels and was later reimbursed by Trump, whose firm recorded the reimbursements as legal fees. Trump maintains that the stories were false, that the reimbursements were for legal work and were recorded properly, and that the case against him was part of a politically motivated “witch hunt” aimed at harming his current presidential campaign.
Even if Trump’s case does not go to federal court, the legal wrangling that ensues could force a delay in his sentencing, giving him a crucial breathing space as he navigates the aftermath of his criminal conviction and the final stretch of his White House campaign.
Separately, trial judge Juan M. Merchan is weighing Trump’s requests to delay sentencing until after Election Day, Nov. 5, and to vacate the verdict and dismiss the case following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
The Supreme Court’s July 1 decision limits prosecutions of former presidents for official acts and limits the ability of prosecutors to use official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.
Trump’s lawyers have argued that prosecutors rushed the case to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, and that the trial was “tainted” by evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how he responded to media coverage of the bribe deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.
Trump’s lawyers had already invoked presidential immunity last year to have the bribery case transferred from state to federal court. A federal judge denied that request, clearing the way for Trump to be tried in state court.
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected Trump’s claim that the allegations in the corruption indictment related to official duties, writing in July 2023: “The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal matter for the president — a cover-up of an embarrassing event.”
“Paying an adult film star to silence her has nothing to do with the president’s official actions. It in no way reflects the color of the president’s official duties,” Hellerstein added.
Trump’s lawyers argued in their filing Thursday that circumstances have changed since their first attempt was rejected. They said, among other things, state prosecutors misled the court by saying earlier that the trial would not focus on Trump’s official duties or actions as president.
Cohen also testified about Trump’s potential use of the pardon power and his response to various investigations into his conduct, they wrote. All of that testimony, they wrote, related to Trump’s actions as president.
“President Trump is entitled to a federal proceeding to defend his presidential immunity based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States,” Blanche and Bove wrote. “Once that case is properly withdrawn, President Trump will establish that the charges should be dismissed.”
Blanche and Bove also reiterated their claims that Merchan treated Trump unfairly because Merchan’s daughter is a Democratic political consultant, and they argued that the judge wrongly muzzled Trump with a gag order that he kept in place after the verdict.
Merchan this month rejected Trump’s latest request to withdraw from the case, saying Trump’s request was a rehash “full of inaccuracies and unsubstantiated assertions” about his ability to remain impartial. A state appeals court recently upheld the publication ban.
Merchan “is poised to imprison President Trump in the final weeks of the campaign, and he has maintained an unwarranted and unconstitutional prior restraint on President Trump’s ability to respond to political attacks by criticizing New York County’s procedures,” Blanche and Bove said.
Originally published:
