Desperate to delay a criminal trial in New York, Trump fires blanks

Last week, Donald Trump submitted a fresh motion seeking a postponement of his Manhattan prosecution. The charges against him involve the falsification of business records in an attempt to conceal an election interference scandal that occurred prior to the 2016 election. However, legal experts, including NBC’s Lisa Rubin, have scrutinized Trump’s latest filing and deemed it to be remarkably feeble. In fact, Rubin referred to it as the ultimate “Hail Mary” attempt.

Trump is displaying signs of desperation in his efforts to evade criminal accountability. As the 2024 election approaches, he is determined to prevent the American public from learning whether a group of 12 ordinary jurors believe he engaged in criminal activities related to the cover-up in 2016. This forms the core of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s case on election interference.

Trump paid hush money to Stormy Daniels through his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. He was worried that if Daniels’ story came out, it could severely damage his chances of becoming president. Now, eight years later, he has the same fear regarding a jury verdict in the case.

Once someone engages in interfering with an election, they are likely to continue doing so in future elections.

Trump is seeking to delay the prosecution of the 2016 election interference case in New York. He wants it “adjourned,” meaning postponed, until the Supreme Court makes a decision regarding presidential immunity in the federal prosecution related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This delay tactic aims to prevent voters from becoming aware of this ongoing legal matter.


Trump’s latest attempt to withhold information from voters and delay the revelation of his guilt or innocence has three significant weaknesses.

In Jack Smith’s January 6 case in DC, he cannot make a direct claim for immunity as he did before. He gave up that claim last year in New York when he tried, but failed, to move the case to the federal court in New York as a way to postpone the prosecution.

He faced a problem as his claim for “removal” was based on the same argument as his potential claim for “immunity”, and he ultimately lost the argument in federal court. Once a legal argument fails and the ruling becomes final, there is no second chance.

Trump’s claim that he was immune from prosecution for writing the checks because he was performing an official presidential function, which was valuable to him despite its legal weakness, has been dismissed.

Trump and his lawyers seemingly realized their mistake too late. In November, they abandoned their appeal of Judge Hellerstein’s decision like a piping hot potato left in the microwave for too long. However, dismissing the appeal did not salvage their claim for potential future immunity.

Trump’s latest motion is a clever maneuver aimed at achieving the same desired outcome. In his motion, he argues that although he himself may not be immune from legal repercussions, any statements he made during his time as president should be considered “immune” and protected from being used against him. This approach implies that presidents are somehow bestowed with a divine authority, where every word they utter during their tenure is shielded by an aura of untouchability.

The legal argument presented by Trump is quite flawed. There is no authority to support the absurd notion that a former president’s statements cannot be used against him, especially when he has already waived immunity. It seems like he is attempting to resurrect a claim that he has already given up.

Trump did not meet the deadline set by the New York court to submit or give notice of his motion by February 22. He had already filed for a Supreme Court suspension of his DC election interference trial ten days prior, while awaiting review of his immunity claim. In order to raise this new claim in the New York court, he should have informed them that he would be filing the new motion if the Supreme Court agreed to consider his claim of immunity.

It wouldn’t come as a surprise if Trump were to receive five votes, given the recent actions of the court. They have effectively disregarded the Disqualification Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to allow Trump, who incited insurrection, to remain on the Colorado ballot. Additionally, the court’s decision to hear the immunity case further raises eyebrows. However, Trump’s latest motion in New York is weak, and if the court were to grant him more delay, it would severely damage its already dwindling legitimacy.

The nation is in dire need of a Supreme Court that can uphold the limited trust it still holds from the public. Perhaps it may seem idealistic, but we remain optimistic that Trump’s absurd request for a postponement will not garner the support of five justices. As a result, his trial in New York will proceed as planned on March 25.

Reference Article

Articles: 3338

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *