By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts related to hush-money payments, his motion to dismiss the case was opposed by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Bragg argued that presidential immunity does not apply and suggested a temporary delay in proceedings to avoid interfering with presidential duties, not a dismissal. Both Bragg and the New York attorney general’s office contend the case will not impede Trump’s official functions. The dispute’s resolution could extend into Trump’s presidency, potentially delaying sentencing until after his term.
Read the original article here
Alvin Bragg’s pursuit of the hush-money case against Donald Trump hinges on a crucial argument: presidential immunity is not a permanent shield. He contends that the alleged crimes predate Trump’s presidency, rendering any claim of immunity irrelevant. The argument suggests that the actions taken, specifically the alleged hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, occurred before the 2016 election and therefore shouldn’t be shielded by any post-election claim to presidential immunity.
This assertion directly challenges the notion that a former president is completely untouchable by the law for actions prior to their time in office. It’s a significant legal point because it suggests that the timeframe of the alleged offense is paramount; if the act occurred before the presidency, then presidential immunity wouldn’t apply. Bragg’s position seems to be that the legal repercussions shouldn’t be delayed indefinitely by the temporary nature of the presidency.
The idea of a “temporary” immunity is a compelling counterpoint to the often-discussed notion of absolute immunity for a president. This isn’t about judging the political ramifications, but about the legal process. Bragg’s focus on the timing of the alleged crimes shifts the argument away from the broader political context and onto the specifics of the legal charges. This implies a belief that justice shouldn’t be denied merely because an individual has held the highest office.
A key element in Bragg’s strategy appears to be establishing a clear distinction between the actions and the office. He appears to be arguing that the alleged actions, in and of themselves, are separate from the presidential office and shouldn’t be protected by any claim of immunity. This could be a vital point in legal proceedings, potentially separating the legal case from any political implications.
This legal battle isn’t solely about the hush-money payment itself. It’s about the broader implications of presidential immunity, particularly whether it offers a permanent shield against prosecution for actions committed before an individual assumes the presidency. Bragg’s actions suggest a belief that the law applies equally, regardless of a person’s former or current position of power.
Many legal experts would likely agree that the timing of the alleged crimes is crucial. If the alleged actions occurred before the commencement of a presidency, the argument for immunity would become significantly weaker. Bragg’s pursuit of the case implies that this legal principle should be upheld. The temporary nature of presidential immunity is a potent legal argument in this case.
The legal debate surrounding this case also includes discussions on whether specific actions, even if occurring during a presidency, can be considered official acts. The argument raises the question of how to define “official acts” and whether the alleged hush-money payment falls under that category. If they are not determined to be official acts, then the argument for immunity weakens further.
The debate also includes the point that if the alleged actions hadn’t occurred, Trump may never have been elected. This line of reasoning, though potentially complex to prove legally, highlights the potential for the actions to have had significant influence on the events leading up to the presidency. This complicates the notion that the actions are entirely separate from the office itself.
In summary, Bragg’s insistence on pursuing the case against Trump centers on the idea that presidential immunity is not a perpetual safeguard. His argument rests on the claim that the alleged crimes occurred before the presidency, therefore falling outside the scope of any potential immunity. This focus on the temporal aspects of the case attempts to separate the alleged criminal acts from the office of the presidency, forming the core of Bragg’s legal strategy. This demonstrates a strong belief in the principle of equal justice under the law, regardless of a defendant’s past or present political standing. This is a bold move that sets the stage for a protracted legal battle with far-reaching implications for future interpretations of presidential immunity.