Trump officials say Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case is “effectively over” after he requested a stay until 2029, celebrating the recent development as a “major victory” for President-elect Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, Bragg requested a stay in New York v. Trump until 2029, as the president-elect’s attorneys moved to dismiss the case completely.
New York prosecutors said Tuesday that although they likely oppose the argument, they remain open to being briefed on Donald Trump’s defense attorneys’ case for a total dismissal.
“Prosecutors are trying to save face,” said a Trump official. “They know this case will soon be thrown out.”
Another official said New York prosecutors’ “fallback” is a “five-year delay.”
“No serious person believes this case will withstand that,” said the official.
Steven Cheung, Trump’s spokesman, also said Bragg’s request for a stay is “a total and definitive victory for President Trump and the American People who elected him in a landslide.”
“The Manhattan DA was conceded that this Witch Hunt cannot continue,” said Cheung, who was tapped to serve as communications director for the White House. “The lawless case is now stayed, and President Trump’s legal team is moving to get it dismissed once and for all.”
An additional source close to Trump and his legal team said Bragg’s move “represents a total failure of the prosecution.”
Their case is in shambles, and now everyone knows it is on its way to the ash heap of history,” said the source. “This thing is not going back in five years — no one would argue it is.”
“This case is effectively over,” said the source. “It is a major victory for President Trump.”
The now-president-elect pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in the several years-long investigation into alleged hush money payments conducted by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Cyrus Vance, the former Manhattan DA, initiated the investigation, and Bragg prosecuted Trump.
Following an unprecedented six-week trial in New York City, a jury found the president guilty on all counts.
Last week, Judge Juan Merchan granted a stay on all deadlines associated with conviction proceedings against President-elect Trump in the last weeks before he is sworn in as the 47th president of the U.S. — including the November sentencing date.
However, Trump’s attorneys have requested that Merchan overturn the guilty verdict entirely, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that former presidents have significant immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office.
Trump’s legal team argued specific evidence shouldn’t have been admitted
President-elect’s legal team argued specific evidence presented by New York prosecutors and Bragg during the trial shouldn’t have been admitted, as they were “official acts.”
In particular, Trump attorney Todd Blanche, who the president nominated to serve as deputy attorney general at the Justice Department, argued testimony from Hope Hicks, former White House communications director; Madeleine Westerhout, former special assistant to the president; testimony regarding congressional investigations, the Special Counsel’s Office and the pardon power; Trump’s presidential Twitter posts; testimony related to President Trump’s response to FEC Inquiries and additional related testimony was impermissibly admitted during trial.
Attorneys for Trump also pointed to Trump’s disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics as president.
Blanche said “official-acts evidence” presented by Bragg to the grand jury “contravened the holding in Trump because Presidents’ cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution,'” read the motion. “The Presidential immunity doctrine recognized in Trump pertains to all ‘criminal proceedings,’ including grand jury proceedings when a prosecutor ‘seeks to charge’ a former President using evidence of official acts.”
Blanche argued Bragg “violated the Presidential immunity doctrine by using similar official-acts evidence in the grand jury proceedings that gave rise to the politically motivated charges in this case.”
“Because an Indictment so tainted cannot stand, the charges must be dismissed,” argued Blanche.
Blanche additionally explained that the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t allow for an “overwhelming evidence” or “harmless error” exception to “the profound institutional interests at stake.”
The 6-3 Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity came from a question stemming from charges brought against Trump in a separate federal case brought by Jack Smith, Special Counsel, related to the events of January 6, 2021, and any alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in the case.
Smith is ramping down his cases against Trump after he was elected the 47th president.
Smith’s classified records case against now President-elect Trump was dismissed earlier in the year by a Florida federal judge who ruled the special counsel was appointed unlawfully.
Merchan hasn’t yet ruled on the immunity argument, which prosecutors anticipate being included in the coming motion for dismissal from the defense.
