:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-2203347295-4e910b9f073942d1b7d94a2def64d8e2.jpg?w=150&resize=150,150&ssl=1 "https://www.investopedia.com/thmb/yahOp4yURU6jnZIYoyFHxrNFir0=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-2203347295-4e910b9f073942d1b7d94a2def64d8e2.jpg")
A judge decided against the efforts of the president elected Donald Trump to reject his reason for guilt in one case that provides for the accusation of falsification of the company registers, a case linked to a controversial payment during his 2016 presidential campaign. The sentence It comes against the background of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court which addresses the presidential immunity, raising questions about the wider implications of the case.
Judge Juan M. Merchan of Manhattan rejected Trump's offer to overturn his reason for guilt, delaying any potential resolution until he assumes the presidency next month. Trump's legal team claimed that the accusations should be reconsidered, citing his imminent return to the highest office of the nation. However, Merchan claimed that the appeal of guilt would remain, despite the renewed status of Trump as president coming.
Trump was stated guilty for 34 counts for falsification of the company records in relation to a payment of $ 130,000 made to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016. The payment was presumably destined to guarantee Daniels' silence on a report that claimed to having had with Trump years earlier. Trump has constantly denied any illicit and his legal team claims to have never committed a crime.
Charges related to money payments
The accusations derive from accusations according to which Trump and his collaborators orchestrated a program to hide the payment to Daniels during the last days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Public ministries claimed that the payment was a deliberate attempt to prevent harmful revelations on the Personal life of Trump from navigation and potentially influencing the electoral result.
A month after the judge's initial sentence, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision that clarifies that the former presidents cannot be pursued for the actions taken in their official role while in charge. The Court also established that public ministries cannot rely on these official documents to build cases focused on personal conduct not related to the presidential functions.
This decision added a layer of complexity to the case of Trump, since his legal team claimed that some of the evidence presented against him improper the actions related to his role as president improperly.
The judge refuses requests for immunity
In his sentence, judge Merchan faced Trump's statements according to which some evidence introduced by the accusation were linked to the official presidential documents and, therefore, should be protected according to the principle of presidential immunity. Merchan recognized the topic, but in the end he concluded that the use of these tests in a case focused on personal conduct did not violate the separation of powers or the violation of the authority of the executive branch.
Although some of the tests are tangentially linked to the official duties of Trump, Merchan said: “The decision of the public ministries to use these tests as part of a case focused on the falsification of the company registers does not represent a threat to the authority and the function of the executive branch. “
Trump's legal team contrasted stating that the inclusion of certain tests, such as his forms of presidential financial dissemination, the posts on social media made while they were in charge and the testimony of the White House assistants – was inappropriate. However, ministries have minimized the meaning of these tests in the general case, claiming that it represents only a small part of their broader topic.
Trump Team swear to fight the sentence
Steven Cheung, director of Trump's communications, criticized Merchan's decision, calling it a “direct violation” of the recent sentence of the Supreme Court on presidential immunity.
“This case is illegal and would never have to be carried out,” Cheung said in a note. “The Constitution asks that he is dismissed immediately.”
Despite the current legal battle, Trump will be inaugurated as president on January 20. His return to the White House raises questions about how the case will proceed, while his legal team continues to push for his dismissal based on constitutional reasons.
Wider implications of the case
Legal proceedings attracted significant public attention, not only because of the accusations themselves but also because of the wider questions that raise on the limits of presidential immunity and responsibility. While the decision of the Supreme Court provides some clarity on the matter, it leaves the possibility of legal challenges that involve personal conduct not related to official duties open.
For now, the future of the case remains uncertain. While Trump is preparing to enter office, the unresolved legal battle underlines the challenges of navigation of the intersection between law, politics and presidency. It remains to be seen if the case will progress further or will be fired on the basis of the constitutional reasons, but continues to highlight the complexities that surround the responsibility of public officials for the actions taken both inside and outside the office.
