A serious setback was dealt to President-elect Trump regarding his attempt to overturn a criminal conviction in New York when a judge ruled that the guilty verdict remains intact despite the Supreme Court’s stance on presidential immunity.
While Trump continues to seek dismissal of the case following his election, Judge Juan Merchan’s recent ruling refuted claims that the Manhattan district attorney presented evidence during the trial that violated the justices’ new standards.
Judge scrutinizes key testimonies, reinforcing the integrity of the trial against Trump
The Supreme Court determined that former presidents are granted absolute immunity for actions executed within their core constitutional duties, and at least presumptive immunity for other official acts. However, actions deemed unofficial are not protected.
The judge examined each piece of contested evidence meticulously. Trump contested the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as his press secretary during the 2016 campaign and later as the White House communications director.
Hicks described her efforts to shape media narratives during the campaign, specifically regarding the notorious “Access Hollywood” tape, where Trump is recorded boasting about inappropriate behavior toward women.
However, Hicks also testified about four communications she had with Trump while in the White House concerning the hush money payments central to the case. Merchan ruled these communications as unofficial because they related to alleged personal interactions between Trump and two women prior to his presidency.
“The testimony was certainly beyond any actual authority Defendant possessed as President,” Merchan stated. Trump’s legal team argued that any interaction between him and Hicks in the White House should be granted immunity to ensure the president’s ability to communicate freely with aides.
Merchan dismissed this argument, asserting that “Defendant’s attempts to categorize these communications under the protections provided by the Take Care and Vesting Clauses are unpersuasive,” emphasizing that Trump had not cited any constitutional authority for the four communications with Hicks.
Additionally, Trump challenged the testimony of Madeleine Westerhout, the only other White House aide to testify. As Trump’s White House secretary, Westerhout confirmed details to the jury regarding how Trump signed checks related to the charges against him.
Merchan noted that Trump failed to challenge Westerhout’s testimony properly, as he did not raise an immunity objection during pretrial court filings or at the trial. “Because Defendant did not timely object to Ms. Westerhout’s testimony about his ‘work habits,’ ‘preferences,’ ‘relationships and contacts,’ and ‘social media’ practices, the motion to set aside the verdict on those grounds is denied,” Merchan wrote.
The judge indicated that Westerhout’s testimony was not protected, stating it “did not involve any official conduct.” “Ms. Westerhout’s observations about Defendant’s preference for working in a dining area rather than at the Resolute Desk, or his choice of a Sharpie over a ballpoint pen, do not present an unacceptable risk of ‘undue pressures or distortions’ to a President’s work,” the judge explained.
Trump’s attorneys also objected to a 2018 government ethics form he signed, which referenced the hush money agreement. On this form, Trump stated that his monthly payments to Michael Cohen, his fixer, were reimbursements for paying off adult film actress Stormy Daniels, undermining the defense’s argument that the payments were a legal retainer fee for Cohen’s services as Trump’s personal attorney.
Merchan determined that while Trump preserved his claim of presidential immunity regarding the Office of Government Ethics form, signing it did not fall within the bounds of his authority as president.
Judge rules Trump’s financial disclosure is not protected by presidential immunity
The judge noted that the president was merely one among many federal employees required to complete the form. Additionally, Trump exercised no “decision-making authority” by filing the document other than to comply truthfully, just as any other employee would.
“A financial disclosure form that is mandated for other federal employees cannot be subject to Presidential immunity,” Merchan ruled. Merchan found that Trump failed to preserve his ability to challenge Cohen’s testimony, the prosecution’s key witness. However, even had he preserved his argument, the judge noted it would have been unsuccessful on its merits.
Trump’s attorneys argued that Cohen’s testimony regarding alleged pressure against him to remain silent about the deal constituted evidence of official acts eligible for absolute immunity.
This included Cohen’s 2019 congressional testimony about Russian interference in the 2016 election, an email from Robert Costello, an ex-legal advisor to Cohen, regarding “potential pre-pardons,” and communications between Cohen and Trump’s then-private counsel, Jay Sekulow.
“His testimony reflected unofficial conduct, and therefore, no immunity applies,” Merchan concluded. “Even if the testimony pertained to conduct that fell within the outer perimeter of his Presidential authority, this Court finds that the People have rebutted that presumption without invoking the motive for the conduct.”
Trump did manage to preserve his ability to contest several posts on Twitter, now known as X, that were presented as evidence; however, Merchan indicated that the tweets do not qualify as official acts.
The president-elect’s attorneys contended that Trump’s Twitter account served as a crucial platform for conducting official business, connecting with millions of Americans and operated partially by White House staff.
Nonetheless, prosecutors argued that the tweets were merely unofficial acts. These posts included disparaging comments about Cohen and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, among other remarks.
“While there are certainly tweets and other communications made by a President that qualify as official communications with the public regarding matters of public concern,” Merchan stated.
“The disputed tweets, however, do not fit that category,” the judge remarked. “Thus, none of the contested tweets, regardless of preservation status, constitute official acts subject to absolute immunity, nor do they fall within the outer perimeter to warrant a presumption of immunity.”
