exclusive: Trump officials told Fox News Digital that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case is “effectively over” after he requested that he remain in office until 2029, and Trump officials confirmed the development to Donald Trump. – Celebrated it as a “huge victory” for President-elect Trump.
Bragg on Tuesday asked that the New York v. Trump case be put on hold until 2029, as the president's lawyers move to have the case dismissed outright.
Prosecutors demand that Trump's New York case be continued until 2029 as a “one-time” motion for dismissal of defense team
New York prosecutors said Tuesday they would likely object to that argument but were open to being briefed on Trump's defense's lawsuit seeking a total dismissal.
“Prosecutors are trying to save face,” a Trump official told Fox News Digital. “They know this case will soon be thrown out.”
President-elect Donald Trump watches the UFC 309 event at Madison Square Garden on November 16, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC)
Another official told FOX News Digital that the New York prosecutor's “setback” was “a five-year delay.”
“No one seriously thinks this case will stand up to that,” the official said.
President Trump's spokesman Stephen Chan also told Fox News Digital that Bragg's request to stay is “a complete and decisive victory for President Trump and the American people who elected him in a landslide.” .
“The Manhattan DA's office has acknowledged that this witch hunt cannot continue,” said Chan, who was selected as White House communications director. “This no-holds-barred lawsuit has now been discontinued, and President Trump's legal team is moving to have this lawsuit dismissed in its entirety.”
President Trump asks New York judge to overturn guilty verdict after Scottus immunity and indict him
Another person close to Trump and his legal team told Fox News Digital that Bragg's move “represents a complete failure of the prosecution.”
“Their case is in shambles and now everyone knows the case is heading towards the ash heap of history,” a source told FOX News Digital. “This thing is not coming back in five years. I don't think anyone would dispute that.”
President Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 charges of first-degree falsification of business records, stemming from a years-long investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney's office related to alleged hush-money payments. Former Manhattan prosecutor Cyrus Vance launched an investigation, and Bragg indicted the president-elect.
After an unprecedented six-week trial in New York City, a jury found the president guilty on all charges.
Judge Juan Machan last week postponed all deadlines related to Trump's conviction proceedings in the final weeks before he becomes the 47th president, including his Nov. 26 sentencing date. acknowledged.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks at a press conference following former President Donald Trump's conviction in the hush money trial in New York City on May 30, 2024. (Getty Images)
But Trump's lawyers have urged Marchand to overturn the guilty verdict entirely, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that provides former presidents with effective immunity from prosecution for their official actions while in office. he demanded.
Trump's lawyers argued that certain evidence presented by Bragg and New York prosecutors during the trial was an “official act” and should not be admitted.
Where does Trump's New York ruling stand after his massive electoral victory?
Specifically, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche, who was nominated by the president to be deputy attorney general at the Justice Department, claimed that former White House communications director Hope Hicks' testimony was as follows: Madeline Westerhout, former special assistant to the president. Testimony regarding the Office of the Special Counsel and Congressional Investigations and Pardon Powers. Testimony regarding President Trump's response to the FEC investigation. His presidential Twitter posts and other related testimony were impermissibly admitted during the trial.
Former US President Donald Trump gives a brief address with his lawyer Todd Blanche after the conclusion of his hush money trial in Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City on May 30, 2024. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Trump's lawyers also pointed out that Trump disclosed information to the Office of Government Ethics as president.
Blanche wrote in the motion that the “official act evidence” that Bragg presented to the grand jury “contradicts President Trump's judgment because the president 'cannot be indicted on the basis of conduct that is exempt from prosecution.'” It's dark. “The doctrine of presidential immunity recognized in the Trump administration pertains to all 'criminal proceedings,' including grand jury proceedings where prosecutors seek to 'indict' a former president using evidence of official conduct.”
Blanche argued that Bragg “violated presidential immunity by using evidence of similar acts of official conduct in a grand jury proceeding that gave rise to politically motivated charges in this case.”
“An indictment so tainted cannot stand and the charges should be dismissed,” Blanche argued.
Blanche also explained that the Supreme Court's decision does not allow for “overwhelming evidence” or “harmless error” exceptions for “significant institutional interests at stake.”
Judge Juan M. Marchan poses in a New York courtroom on March 14, 2024. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)
The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on presidential immunity comes in a separate federal case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, and any alleged efforts to subvert presidential powers. The issue stems from the charges brought against Trump in a lawsuit. 2020 election results.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in the case.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Mr. Smith ended his case against Mr. Trump after he was elected the 47th president of the United States.
Mr. Smith's classified records lawsuit against Mr. Trump was dismissed earlier this year when a federal judge in Florida ruled that the appointment of a special counsel was illegal.
Mr. Machan has not yet ruled on the immunity claim, which prosecutors expect will be included in future defense motions to dismiss.
