The immunity surrounding President Trump is back in discussion as he continues to navigate the criminal conviction in New York State Court. Last spring, a judge found him guilty of altering business records in 2017 to cover up payments made to adult actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 election period.
Trump is aiming to shift his appeal to federal court, viewing it as a more favorable environment to overturn the judge’s ruling. Interestingly, four Supreme Court justices have hinted at their potential openness to his argument.
However, Trump faces a challenge in reconciling his actions with public perception. If he were to absolve himself, it would raise concerns about who could truly act as a judge in their own case.
Claims that the payment to a porn actress could be seen as an official presidential act seem quite far-fetched at first glance. This line of reasoning has already been dismissed twice by federal courts.
Prior to the trial, Trump sought to have the prosecution moved to federal court, but Judge Alvin Hellerstein firmly rejected that idea. He maintains that hush money payments cannot qualify as official presidential actions.
Recently, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals heard oral arguments regarding Hellerstein’s decision.
During the trial, Trump’s legal representatives, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, were unable to represent him since they are now top officials at the Department of Justice. Instead, Jeffrey B. Wall from the well-known Sullivan & Cromwell firm stepped in to represent Trump.
Sullivan & Cromwell was not targeted by Trump’s previous legal teams, which, to be fair, means they weren’t involved in any pro bono arrangements to protect representatives from being blacklisted. Trump has ties to this firm, as he was involved in negotiating a settlement between its managing partner and a law firm representing him.
Wall contended that there was justification for moving the case, labeling the prosecution’s approach as unusual. He pointed out that the evidence used comes from Trump’s presidency. Judge Susan L. Carney, appointed by Obama, recognized that any verdict would force New Yorkers to consider the presidency’s interests.
If Trump’s attempt at the federal level fails, he is likely to take his case through the New York appeals process, and then potentially all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court—an uphill battle for sure.
In a related case regarding Trump’s claims of absolute immunity for events from January 6, 2021, Judge Florence Y. Pan posed a hypothetical question to Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer.
“Can the president sell pardons or order assassinations?” she questioned, emphasizing the importance of a straightforward answer. Sauer replied with a “qualified yes,” suggesting that criminal liability might only kick in after a House impeachment and Senate conviction.
It’s a troubling perspective. Can actions like covering up payments to adult film stars really be classified as “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a constitutional sense?
James Pierce, representing the government, found Sauer’s theory alarming, referencing historic abuses of power while asserting that the presidency should be subordinate to the law.
The case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed broad presidential immunity regarding actions tied to constitutional responsibilities. Chief Justice Roberts noted that such immunity protects the presidency as an institution, not the individual.
Yet Roberts did indicate that dealings involving private actions unrelated to official functions could be prosecutable once the president is in office.
In an intriguing note in the court’s opinion, Roberts pointed out that prosecutors should not use official communications regarding illegal acts, even if evidence of financial transactions could be presented.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett challenged this view, arguing that understanding claims of a quid pro quo would necessitate listening to all sides, even if that might complicate the legal proceedings for the president.
The question remains—could the reimbursement to an adult actress, signed in the Oval Office, really be framed as a lawful exercise of presidential duty? It’s ambiguous, and who knows what the Supreme Court will decide.
