Former President Donald Trump finds himself embroiled in a legal battle as his lawyers employ various strategies to challenge the state prosecution led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. This article delves into the recent developments, including Trump’s lawyers’ efforts to remove the case to federal court and their arguments regarding the nature of the hush money payment made to Michael Cohen.
Donald Trump is facing 34 counts of first-degree falsification under New York Penal Law § 175.10, a felony charge. The prosecution alleges that Trump’s intent to defraud includes committing another crime or aiding in its commission. While Bragg alluded to potential violations of New York state and federal election laws, some legal experts argue that federal election law preempts state law, making it challenging for Bragg to rely solely on federal campaign finance statutes to elevate the charges to a felony.
Trump’s legal team, comprised of Susan Necheles, Todde Blanche, and Joseph Tacopina, recently filed a notice of removal, seeking to transfer the state prosecution to federal court. They claim the indictment is politically motivated, driven by Bragg’s disfavor of Trump’s actions and policies as President. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Vance, they argue that federal courts have “protective jurisdiction” in cases where state prosecutors exhibit hostility towards a federal officer. However, it is worth noting that the issue of whether §1442 provides federal protective jurisdiction in such cases remains undecided by the Supreme Court.
Trump’s legal team puts forth two main arguments to defend their client’s actions. Firstly, they contend that Cohen’s role extended beyond a mere reimbursement for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Instead, they claim Cohen was engaged in legal work to address concerns related to potential conflicts of interest, corruption, and constitutional violations stemming from Trump’s business interests. However, Cohen and Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, have contradicted this assertion, raising doubts about its validity.
Secondly, Trump’s lawyers argue that the former president’s decision to retain Cohen as his personal attorney arose from his duties as President, thus invoking a federal defense to the charges. This argument suggests that Trump’s actions were within the scope of his official duties or closely associated with them. The defense’s case rests on establishing a connection between the hush money payment and Trump’s responsibilities as President.
The case was assigned to Judge Ronnie Abrams, an Obama appointee. However, she recused herself due to potential conflicts of interest, and Judge Alvin Hellerstein will now hear the case. Notably, Judge Hellerstein is also presiding over the state prosecution, which adds a level of complexity to the proceedings.
While the legal battle continues with the removal process, it is important to note that litigation over removal does not immediately halt the state prosecution. Both cases are expected to proceed in parallel for the foreseeable future, keeping Trump entangled in multiple legal fronts.
Donald Trump’s legal team is employing various tactics in their effort to challenge the state prosecution led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The removal of the case to federal court and the defense’s arguments regarding the nature of the Cohen payoff have added complexity to the proceedings. As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome remains uncertain, and Trump inches closer to his goal of being involved in multiple court proceedings simultaneously.