Donald Trump Asks Appeal Court For Second Chance

A judge “ignored key evidence” while refusing to transfer Donald Trump’s hush money case to a federal court, his lawyers have complained.
The former president’s legal team are asking an appeal court to overrule the September 3 decision of federal judge Alvin Hellerstein, who refused to transfer the case.
They want the case transferred to federal court so that Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, can claim presidential immunity. This is their second time asking the appeal court to intervene after Hellerstein’s ruling.
Trump faced trial in New York City on 34 counts of falsifying business records for $130,000 of hush money payments made to former adult film actor Stormy Daniels.
Daniels was paid in the run up to the 2016 election to keep secret an alleged affair she had with Trump a decade earlier. Trump denies any sexual involvement with Daniels.
On May 30, a jury convicted him on all 34 counts.
Newsweek sought email comment from Trump’s attorney on Tuesday.
Trump is due to be sentenced on November 26 before New York Superior Court judge, Juan Merchan.
Hellerstein had rejected the argument that the Supreme Court’s July 1 decision on presidential immunity should strike down the hush money case.
Trump’s lawyers have now taken a case to a New York federal appeal court, arguing that Hellerstein had ignored key facts.
Their filing on Monday states that Hellerstein’s September 3 ruling “misapplied binding precedent and statutory removal procedure, ignored key evidence…and misapprehended the obligation of federal courts to provide an unbiased federal forum.”
Part of their argument for a venue change is Trump’s desire to lift a gag order placed on during the hush money trial. It prohibits him from criticizing witnesses, jurors and court staff.
Trump broke the gag order ten times during the trial and was fined $10,000 in total.
In their latest filing, his lawyers state that there is a “need to protect the integrity of the 2024 Presidential election by providing President Trump with a federal forum to seek prompt relief from an unconstitutional gag order that improperly restricts his campaign speech.”
They also argue that federal law should preempt state law when dealing with a federal officer such as the president and, once transferred to federal court, Trump should then be allowed to claim immunity.
“President Trump’s removal notice more than adequately raises the ‘colorable’ defenses of preemption and federal immunity,” they stated in a previous court filing.
In his ruling, Hellerstein strongly rejected their claim that Trump’s alleged hush money payments to Daniels were presidential acts and therefore came under the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.
“Nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority,” he wrote.