{"id":2316196,"date":"2024-07-30T17:34:01","date_gmt":"2024-07-30T21:34:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trump-lawyers-seek-to-correct-manhattan-district-attorneys-misguided-claims-on-immunity-washington-examiner\/"},"modified":"2024-07-30T17:43:10","modified_gmt":"2024-07-30T21:43:10","slug":"trump-lawyers-seek-to-correct-manhattan-district-attorneys-misguided-claims-on-immunity-washington-examiner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/trump-lawyers-seek-to-correct-manhattan-district-attorneys-misguided-claims-on-immunity-washington-examiner\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump lawyers seek to correct Manhattan district attorney\u2019s \u2018misguided\u2019 claims on immunity &#8211; Washington Examiner"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">30<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Ftrump-lawyers-seek-to-correct-manhattan-district-attorneys-misguided-claims-on-immunity-washington-examiner%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2316196&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>Former President \u2062Donald Trump&#8217;s legal team is seeking approval from Judge Juan Merchan to submit a detailed \u200cresponse \u200dto what they characterize as misleading claims \u2064made by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg&#8217;s office regarding issues of presidential immunity. This legal dispute has arisen \u200cin the context of a motion filed by Trump&#8217;s attorneys\u200d urging the dismissal of a jury&#8217;s guilty verdict on 34 felony charges, which they assert should be reconsidered in light \u200dof a recent Supreme Court ruling on\u2062 presidential immunity.<\/p>\n<p>In a letter \u2062to the judge, Trump&#8217;s lawyers argue that the prosecutors did not adequately address significant points previously raised in their defense, and they emphasize the \u200bimportance of a comprehensive \u200d30-page reply to clarify these misrepresentations. They contend that previous \u200cassertions made by Bragg&#8217;s office regarding the \u2064timing and validity of Trump&#8217;s immunity arguments were inaccurate \u200dand legally flawed.<\/p>\n<p>Prosecutors have argued that Trump\u2019s actions related to the\u200b investigation into <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/marjorie-taylor-greene-calls-likely-second-federal-trump-indictment-election-meddling\/\" title=\"Marjorie Taylor Greene labels potential second Trump indictment as &#039;election meddling&#039;.\">hush \u200dmoney payments<\/a> do not qualify for protection under\u2063 presidential duties as defined \u2062by the Take Care Clause. However, Trump&#8217;s team insists that he had \u200bthe right to discuss such investigations in the course of fulfilling his \u200bofficial responsibilities. The \u2062ongoing legal\u200c maneuvering highlights the complexities surrounding the definitions of presidential immunity and the implications of recent\u2063 Supreme Court decisions.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-header-search-button-mob dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><span class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-button\"><i class=\"tdb-mobile-menu-icon td-icon-mobile\"><\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search\" aria-labelledby=\"td-header-search-button\">\n<div class=\"tdb-drop-down-search-inner\">\n<form method=\"get\" class=\"tdb-search-form\" action=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\"><\/form>\n<div class=\"tdb-aj-search\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/#\" role=\"button\" aria-label=\"Search\" class=\"tdb-head-search-btn dropdown-toggle\" data-toggle=\"dropdown\"><i class=\"tdb-search-icon td-icon-search\"><\/i><\/a><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<h1 class=\"tdb-title-text\">Trump lawyers seek to correct Manhattan district attorney&rsquo;s &lsquo;misguided&rsquo; claims on immunity<\/h1>\n<div><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-title-line\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\">\n<div id=\"Brid_1716365\" class=\"tpd-featured-video bridtv\"><\/div>\n<p>Attorneys for former President <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/donald-trump\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Donald Trump<\/a> requested permission from <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/new-york\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">New York<\/a> Judge Juan Merchan to file a detailed reply to counter what they describe as &ldquo;misguided and inaccurate&rdquo; assertions by Manhattan District Attorney <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/tag\/alvin-bragg\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Alvin Bragg<\/a>&lsquo;s office.<\/p>\n<p>The request was laid out in a Thursday letter to Merchan, made public on Tuesday. It follows a Wednesday <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/news\/justice\/3099693\/bragg-argues-scotus-immunity-decision-has-no-bearing-on-trump-hush-money-case\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>opposition filing by Bragg&rsquo;s office<\/a> that asserted Trump&rsquo;s legal team misrepresented key legal and factual issues. The back-and-forth between the defense and prosecutors stems from a Trump motion on July 11 that sought to toss out a jury&rsquo;s guilty verdict on 34 felony counts due to the Supreme Court&rsquo;s presidential immunity decision earlier this month.<\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Former President Donald Trump reacts as he walks back into the courtroom after a break during closing arguments in his hush money trial on May 28, 2024, at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York. (Spencer Platt\/Pool Photo via AP)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>In the latest pre-motion letter, Trump&rsquo;s lawyers argue prosecutors failed to address several critical points the defense raised in their initial request for presidential immunity. They emphasized the need to file a 30-page reply to address the alleged misrepresentations and ensure Merchan has a complete understanding of the newly minted Supreme Court immunity precedent.<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;Similar to DANY&rsquo;s misguided and inaccurate assertions to the Court that a previous motion was untimely &hellip; which they still make no effort to defend &mdash; DANY&rsquo;s July 24 filing contains several legal and factual misrepresentations that invite further error with respect to the historic issues of first impression that the Court must address,&rdquo; Trump attorney Todd Blanche wrote in a letter obtained by <em>Law360.<\/em><\/p>\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter wp-block-embed-twitter\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<blockquote class=\"twitter-tweet\" data-width=\"550\" data-dnt=\"true\">\n<p lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\">New: Trump previews rebuttal of <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/ManhattanDA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">@ManhattanDA<\/a>&#8216;s presidential immunity args, asks to file a reply:<\/p>\n<p>&ndash; Immunity obj.s *were preserved*<br \/>&ndash; DA ignores constitutional issues<br \/>&ndash; DA makes banned motive inquiry<br \/>&ndash; DA&#8217;s &#8216;harmless error&#8217; args &#8216;inadequate&#8217; in face of SCOTUS ruling <a href=\"https:\/\/t.co\/Iyrg1YE0SK\">pic.twitter.com\/Iyrg1YE0SK<\/a><\/p>\n<p>&mdash; Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/frankrunyeon\/status\/1818293449314959667?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw\">July 30, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><script data-cfasync=\"false\" src=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/cdn-cgi\/scripts\/5c5dd728\/cloudflare-static\/email-decode.min.js\"><\/script><script async src=\"https:\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script> <\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<p>The letter, which was still not available on the New York Court system&rsquo;s <a href=\"https:\/\/ww2.nycourts.gov\/people-v-donald-j-trump-criminal-37026\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>public docket<\/a>, highlighted several areas where defense attorneys believe Bragg&rsquo;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/court-no-evidence-georgias-election-integrity-law-discriminates-against-black-voters\/\" title=\"Court finds no proof Georgia&#039;s election law discriminates against Black voters.\">arguments fall short<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>For example, prosecutors wrote in their Wednesday response motion that Trump&rsquo;s attorneys raised immunity arguments before the trial that did not include the evidence Trump&rsquo;s team now has a problem with and that the defense did not adequately preserve their client&rsquo;s right to bring the new immunity claims.<\/p>\n<p>But Trump&rsquo;s team contends that it properly objected to the admission of evidence at trial, contrary to Bragg&rsquo;s claim. It argues that Merchan&rsquo;s acknowledgment of their objections, when the judge stated &ldquo;the objection is noted,&rdquo; and &ldquo;I don&rsquo;t think you need to object as to each question,&rdquo; validates its preservation efforts.<\/p>\n<p>Bragg&rsquo;s office previously stated that Trump&rsquo;s alleged actions related to the Federal Election Commission investigation into the hush money matter did not constitute official presidential duties protected by the Take Care Clause and, therefore, do not warrant presidential immunity.<\/p>\n<p>In their response letter, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/enrique-tarrio-sentenced-to-decades-behind-bars-the-longest-j6-sentence-to-date\/\" title=\"Enrique Tarrio receives record-breaking J6 sentence: Decades in prison.\">defense lawyers maintain<\/a> that Bragg ignored the constitutional authority granted by the Take Care Clause. They say it was permissible for Trump while in office to discuss investigations, including the separate FEC probe that was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/05\/06\/us\/politics\/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title>dropped<\/a> in May 2021, with Justice Department officials as part of his duty to ensure laws are faithfully executed. Bragg&rsquo;s office disagrees.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, Trump has never acknowledged whether he actually spoke to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions about the FEC investigation, according to Bragg&rsquo;s office. Prosecutors suggested in the filing that trial testimony from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen regarding his belief that Sessions would &ldquo;take care of&rdquo; the FEC investigation amounted to nothing more than an &ldquo;empty promise.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, the defense argued in its Thursday letter that oversight of the FEC is within a president&rsquo;s executive powers, challenging Bragg&rsquo;s claim that Trump lacked supervisory authority over the agency. It also disputed characterizations made by Bragg&rsquo;s team of evidence related to FEC inquiries as attempts to interfere with investigations, citing the Supreme Court&rsquo;s prohibition on inquiring into the president&rsquo;s motives.<\/p>\n<p>Sentencing in the case, initially scheduled for July 11, was pushed back after&nbsp;Trump&rsquo;s lawyers claimed&nbsp;a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity backed their claim that his conviction should be tossed. Defense lawyers said certain evidence and testimony should have been withheld from the jury because they were related to protected official acts of the presidency.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><\/a><\/strong>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Merchan has said he will rule on Trump&rsquo;s effort to overturn his 34-count conviction on Sept. 6. If his effort fails, a sentencing hearing will take place on Sept. 18.<\/p>\n<p>Trump could face jail time in the case, though Merchan could also sentence him to a lesser penalty, including fines, probation, or house arrest.<\/p>\n<p> <script>!function(){var g=window;g.googletag=g.googletag||{},g.googletag.cmd=g.googletag.cmd||[],g.googletag.cmd.push(function(){g.googletag.pubads().setTargeting(\"has-featured-video\",\"true\")})}();<\/script><script>var _bp=_bp||[];_bp.push({\"div\":\"Brid_1716365\",\"obj\":{\"id\":\"27789\",\"width\":\"1280\",\"height\":\"720\",\"stickyDirection\":\"below\",\"video\":\"1716365\"}});<\/script><script defer src=\"https:\/\/services.brid.tv\/player\/build\/brid.min.js\"><\/script><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<div class=\"tdb-block-inner td-fix-index\"><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Trump&#8217;s legal team is asking New York Judge Juan Merchan for permission to submit a comprehensive response to what they consider &#8220;misguided and inaccurate&#8221; claims made by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg&#8217;s office. This request was detailed in a letter sent on Thursday, which became public on Tuesday. It follows an opposition filing from Bragg\u2019s office that accused Trump\u2019s lawyers of misrepresenting important legal and factual matters. The exchange between the defense and prosecutors originated from a motion filed by Trump on July 11, aiming to overturn a jury&#8217;s guilty verdict on 34 felony counts based on the Supreme Court&#8217;s recent ruling regarding presidential immunity.<\/p>\n<p>In their latest correspondence, Trump&#8217;s attorneys argue that prosecutors have overlooked several key points raised in their initial plea for presidential immunity. They stress the necessity of submitting a 30-page reply to address these alleged misrepresentations and ensure that Judge Merchan fully understands the new Supreme Court precedent concerning immunity.<\/p>\n<p>Trump attorney Todd Blanche noted in his letter that similar inaccuracies were present in Bragg\u2019s previous filings, which he claimed lacked adequate defense against their assertions. The letter pointed out various areas where Trump&#8217;s defense believes Bragg&#8217;s arguments are insufficient.<\/p>\n<p>For instance, prosecutors contended that Trump\u2019s legal team had previously raised immunity arguments without including evidence they now contest and failed to preserve their right to introduce new claims of immunity adequately. However, Trump&#8217;s lawyers maintain they properly objected during the trial regarding evidence admission contrary to Bragg\u2019s assertions.<\/p>\n<p>Bragg&#8217;s office has argued that Trump&#8217;s actions related to an investigation by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) do not fall under official presidential duties protected by constitutional provisions; thus, he should not be granted presidential immunity. In response, Trump\u2019s lawyers assert that discussions about investigations with Justice Department officials were part of his responsibilities as president under the Take Care Clause.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, there is contention over whether Trump ever discussed the FEC investigation with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions; prosecutors claim any such testimony amounted only to an &#8220;empty promise.&#8221; The defense also argues against Bragg&#8217;s assertion that oversight of FEC falls outside presidential authority while challenging characterizations made about evidence related to FEC inquiries as attempts at interference with investigations\u2014citing Supreme Court restrictions against probing into presidential motives.<\/p>\n<p>Originally scheduled for July 11, sentencing has been postponed following Trump&#8217;s lawyers&#8217; claims linking a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity as grounds for dismissing his conviction. Judge Merchan is expected to rule on this matter regarding overturning Trump&#8217;s conviction on September 6; if unsuccessful, sentencing will occur on September 18 where potential penalties could include jail time or lesser sanctions like fines or probation<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2633,"featured_media":2316197,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/MixCollage-04-Jun-2024-02-15-PM-2086.jpg.optimal.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[34834,5738,4875,9519,3634],"class_list":["post-2316196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-district-attorney","tag-immunity","tag-lawyers","tag-manhattan","tag-trump"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.washingtonexaminer.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/MixCollage-04-Jun-2024-02-15-PM-2086.jpg.optimal.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2316196","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2633"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2316196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2316196\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2316197"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2316196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2316196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2316196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}