Recent Ruling Could Wipe Out Key Case Against Trump, Legal Expert Reveals

Legal observers of former President Donald Trump’s hush money conviction believe there is ample evidence it will be overturned on appeal.

That’s the basis of an argument put forth by David W. Fischer, a Maryland and D.C.-based criminal defense attorney, who posited online that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling gives Trump’s attorneys all the ammo they need to overturn the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The Democratic prosecutor most recently declined to oppose a delay in a sentencing hearing, suggesting he too is aware that the high court’s decision could upend the case Trump has long called politically motivated. According to Fischer, the former president is on solid ground in arguing that his criminal actions were protected “official acts” while in office.

(VOTE: Are You Supporting TRUMP Or KAMALA In November?)

Fischer explains, “The Supreme Court’s definition of what constitutes an ‘official act’ is broad. Even conduct in the ‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s duties is ‘presumptively immune’ and cannot be used in a trial ‘even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct.'” Bragg, predictably, has opposed that argument in Trump’s request to dismiss the conviction, saying the then-candidate directed his former attorney to make a six-figure payment to an adult film star to quell rumors of a possible extramarital affair. “Bragg’s prosecutors, however, introduced substantial evidence at trial that clearly falls under the rubric of ‘official acts.’ (The alleged crime took place when Donald Trump was president.),” Fischer continued in an op-ed on reporter Julie Kelly’s Substack page.

Among the evidence cited by Bragg is testimony from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen and spokeswoman Hope Hicks that he claims shows the former president was “motivated” by a purely “private purpose” in directing the payment. That claim has been rejected by the Supreme Court, Fischer wrote. “Bragg’s main problem is that his prosecutors heavily emphasized official-acts evidence to the jury in the closing argument. In particular, prosecutors used immunized conversations from Hicks and others to bolster Cohen’s credibility, and even had Cohen testify about Trump allegedly offering pardons for nefarious purposes. These conversations are immunized because, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in Trump v. United States, to allow them to be used against a former President would ‘pose [a danger] of intrusion on the authority and functions of the executive branch.’ To paraphrase the Chief Justice, an ‘official act’ is not a ‘private act’ just because a prosecutor characterizes it as such.”

Another point of contention asserted by Trump’s attorneys is that Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan allowed Bragg to introduce “immunized testimony” by Hicks and Cohen, both of whom had been promised immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against their former boss. It is widely believed that Bragg could not have proved his case without their admissions, but especially that of Cohen, an ex-con who was previously convicted of lying to Congress. “By failing to rule on the admissibility of arguably official-acts evidence before trial, Judge Merchan likely committed reversible error,” Fischer opines.

In the end, President Trump will nonetheless benefit from extensive delays in his trial, he concludes. Others have speculated that Bragg, in declining to oppose a delay in sentencing for President Trump, is acting at the wishes of national Democrats including Vice President Kamala Harris who some argue would rather avoid the spectacle of seeing the Republican sentenced to jail time. The change in timeline means any outcome will almost certainly be delayed until after the November election. “Assuming Trump is re-elected, the New York case will evaporate, either through the appellate or political process,” Fischer concluded.

(FREE RED HAT: “Impeached. Arrested. Convicted. Shot. Still Standing”)