Prosecutors urge judge not to toss out Donald Trump's hush money conviction, pushing back on immunity claim

Manhattan prosecutors on Thursday asked the judge in the Donald Trump hush money case to deny a bid to toss the hush money conviction against the former president, arguing the defense’s claim of presidential immunity does not apply.

"This Court should reject defendant's request to vacate his conviction and dismiss the indictment on the basis of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity," Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo wrote in a 69-page motion dated July 24.

Trump was convicted in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide reimbursements to his former fixer Michael Cohen who paid former adult film star Stormy Daniels to remain silent about an alleged tryst she had with the former president in 2006.

On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in another criminal case in which Trump is charged with trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election that he "may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts."

Based on that decision, Trump’s legal team sought to overturn his conviction in Manhattan, claiming that the trial was "tainted" by evidence that falls under the "official acts" umbrella.

Defense lawyers objected to evidence regarding testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, former director of Oval Office Operations. They also took issue with tweets sent by the former president while in office, a federal disclosure form presented at trial and testimony from Cohen regarding his perjury before Congress.

That testimony, Trump’s lawyers argued, happened while the former president was in office and fell under the immunity protection of the high court’s ruling.

Manhattan prosecutors countered that all of the acts charged personal to the former president and fell outside his constitutional duties.

"The criminal charges here . . . exclusively stem from defendant's "unofficial acts" — conduct for which ‘there is no immunity,’" Colangelo wrote.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's Office also invoke a legal principle referred to as the "harmless error rule," which dictates that the case should not be dismissed if the inadmissible evidence does not sway the jury’s decision.

"For all the pages that defendant devotes to his current motion, the evidence that he claims is affected by the Supreme Court's ruling constitutes only a sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof that the jury considered in finding him guilty of all 34 felony charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for disturbing the jury's verdict, and defendant's motion should be denied," Colangelo wrote.

They also faulted defense lawyers for not bringing the immunity argument up previously, saying that the issue could not be raised now.

Lead defense attorney Todd Blanche filed with his own letter Thursday afternoon, calling the district attorney’s brief "misguided and inaccurate" and containing "legal and factual misrepresentations."

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan promised to rule on the immunity issue a week before the Sept. 18 sentencing date.

Trump faces four years in prison on the falsifying business records case, though he could receive probation instead.