Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg stands firm on Trump’s business records conviction while considering procedural delays that could impact the timeline of legal proceedings.
At a Glance
- Trump faces 34 felony counts for allegedly misrepresenting business records
- DA Bragg opposes dismissal but is open to pausing proceedings during Trump’s presidential term
- Case stems from payments recorded as legal expenses before 2016 election
- Legal debate centers on whether pre-presidency actions warrant immunity
- Bragg’s position balances law enforcement with constitutional considerations
Bragg’s Stance on Trump’s Conviction
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has taken a firm stance against President-elect Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his felony conviction in New York. The case, which has garnered significant attention, revolves around 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made before the 2016 election. Each count carries a potential four-year prison sentence under New York state law, highlighting the gravity of the situation.
Despite opposing the dismissal, Bragg has shown flexibility regarding the timing of further proceedings. He has expressed willingness to pause the case pending the judge’s decision on Trump’s motion to dismiss, potentially deferring it until after Trump completes his term in the White House. This approach demonstrates Bragg’s attempt to balance the demands of justice with the unique circumstances surrounding a sitting president.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg informed a New York court on Tuesday that it plans to oppose a motion by President-elect Donald Trump's legal team to dismiss his hush-money case. https://t.co/bf4C9YmJBW
— LEX 18 News (@LEX18News) November 19, 2024
Legal Arguments and Presidential Immunity
The core of the legal debate centers on whether actions taken before assuming the presidency warrant immunity. Trump’s legal team is seeking dismissal based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. However, Bragg argues that a president’s temporary immunity does not necessitate dismissing a criminal proceeding initiated before the defendant had such immunity.
“No current law establishes that a president’s temporary immunity from prosecution requires dismissal of a post-trial criminal proceeding that was initiated at a time when the defendant was not immune from criminal prosecution and that is based on unofficial conduct for which the defendant is also not immune,” Bragg wrote in a letter to Judge Juan Merchan. “Rather, existing law suggests that the court must balance competing constitutional interests and proceed ‘in a manner that preserves both the independence of the executive and the integrity of the criminal justice system.'”
This stance aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents have no immunity for unofficial conduct. The case against Trump stems from payments disguised as legal costs to an adult film actress before the 2016 election, which Bragg contends falls outside the scope of official presidential duties.
Donald Trump's hush money case may be pushed to December after the New York District Attorney said he would oppose the president-elect's motion for dismissal. https://t.co/pXHZ1qSe8P
— Newsweek (@Newsweek) November 19, 2024
Balancing Constitutional Interests
Bragg’s approach to this high-profile case demonstrates a careful consideration of both legal and constitutional factors. While maintaining the validity of the conviction, he has shown openness to procedural adjustments that could accommodate Trump’s unique position as a former and potentially future president.
“Given the need to balance competing constitutional interests, consideration must be given to various non-dismissal options that may address any concerns raised by the pendency of a post-trial criminal proceeding during the presidency, such as deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term,” Bragg wrote.
This position highlights the complex interplay between executive privilege and state prosecution. By suggesting the possibility of deferring criminal proceedings until after Trump’s presidential term, Bragg aims to strike a balance between upholding the law and respecting the office of the presidency.
As this legal saga unfolds, it continues to raise important questions about the extent of presidential immunity and the accountability of public officials under the law. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for future legal proceedings involving presidents and their actions both in and out of office.
