Trump twists and turns to get his 34-count conviction wiped clean
The breadth of presidential immunity has come back to haunt us, as President Trump continues maneuvering to overturn his New York state court criminal conviction. Last spring, a New York jury convicted him on 34 counts of falsification of business records to conceal a hush-money payment to the porn actress Stormy Daniels in 2017, as part of a deal made in the runup to the 2016 election.
Trump wants to move the appeal of his conviction to the federal courts, which he sees as a more favorable forum to overturn the jury verdict. Amazingly, four Supreme Court justices have already signaled that they might lean towards accepting his argument.
Trump cannot pardon himself from a state conviction — if he can pardon himself at all, as it is well settled that no one can be the judge in his own cause.
Can a payoff to a porn actress be an official act, because Trump happened to be in the Oval Office when he signed the checks on a personal bank account? The argument sounds absurd on its face. It has already been rejected twice by a federal court in the same case.
Before trial, Trump tried to move the prosecution to federal court, and District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, a respected jurist, flatly rejected the argument, holding once and again that a hush money payoff simply cannot be an official presidential act.
Last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on appeal from Hellerstein's decision.
Trump's legal team at the trial, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, are now top-ranking officials in the Justice Department, so they could no longer represent him. This time around, Jeffrey B. Wall, a partner in the Washington office of the storied Sullivan & Cromwell firm, represented Trump.
Sullivan & Cromwell was not among Trump's targeted firms of DEI-inclined lawyers, so we cannot say that the representation involved the rendering of pro bono services as a peace offering to avoid blacklisting. Trump has become closely identified with its managing partner, Robert Giuffre, who helped negotiate the settlement between the president and the targeted law firm of Paul Weiss.
Wall argued that there was reason to move the case, which he disparaged as an 'anomalous, one-of-its-kind prosecution.' He contended that prosecutors had relied on evidence from Trump's first term as president. One of the judges, Obama-appointed Susan L. Carney, acknowledged that any decision would need to weigh the interests of the presidency against those of New York State. And so it will.
If Trump fails in his appeal to the federal court, the state case would be appealed to New York's intermediate appellate court, and after that to its court of last resort — and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump seeks to avoid having to roll the rock up that steep hill.
During the 2024 oral argument in the D.C. Circuit in U.S. v. Trump, related to Trump's claim of absolute immunity from prosecution for the events of Jan. 6, 2021, Judge Florence Y. Pan presented a hypothetical scenario to Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer (now the U.S. Solicitor General).
'A president could sell pardons, could sell military secrets, could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?' Judge Pan asked. 'Would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if he's not impeached?' Pan pressed for a 'yes or no' answer.
Sauer stated that his response was a 'qualified yes,' reasoning that a president would need to undergo the House impeachment and Senate conviction process before criminal liability could apply. Sauer also suggested that a president who ordered an assassination would likely be impeached 'speedily.'
Really? Would a concealed payoff to a porn star or the falsification of business records before taking office ever qualify as a 'high crime and misdemeanor,' the constitutional standard for impeachment?
Special Counsel James Pearce, representing the government, described Sauer's theory as 'frightening.' King George III was above the law. That is why the Founders made the American president the law's servant.
Eventually, the case reached the Supreme Court, and, as we all know, the court upheld in a 6-to-3 decision a broad presidential immunity from prosecution for actions taken in exercise of his core constitutional duties. Writing in the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts stated that 'the interests that underlie presidential immunity seek to protect not the president himself, but the institution of the presidency.'
Roberts, however, in a gesture toward the principle that no one is above the law, said that private schemes with private actors, unconnected to any statutory or constitutional authority or executive function, are unofficial acts for which the president could be prosecuted after he left office.
In what has become a problematic footnote to the court's opinion, Roberts said that in a case regarding private acts that were connected to official acts — for example, the venal selling of a pardon — prosecutors would not be allowed to use official documents not in the public domain or oral communications with the president connected to the exercise of the pardon power. Although prosecutors could of course present evidence of the bribe payment, they would be barred from using presidential communications about the illegal act being taken in exchange for the bribe — for example, official evidence that the president knew there was no basis for the pardon or that advisers had recommended against granting it.
On this, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pushed back in a blistering concurring opinion. As she put it, 'To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone could not be a basis for the president's criminal liability.' Barrett, chagrined at Roberts' thinking, wrote that such a rule would 'hamstring the prosecution.'
So, can it be the law that a president's hush-money payoffs to a porn actress is an executive action authorized by the Constitution, because he happened to sign the checks in the Oval Office? Not bloody likely — but with this Supreme Court, who knows?
James D. Zirin, author and legal analyst, is a former federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District. He is also the host of the public television talk show and podcast Conversations with Jim Zirin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
24 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Why Trump Has Had Enough of This Republican Congressman
'MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him,' President Donald Trump wrote in a lengthy tirade against Thomas Massie, a Republican congressman from Kentucky who has criticized the President over a number of issues from war with Iran to the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. 'He is a negative force who almost always Votes 'NO,' no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded 'grandstander' who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling 'DEATH TO AMERICA' at every chance they get,' Trump posted on Sunday. He added: 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' Massie responded with a tongue-in-cheek post on X that the President 'declared so much War on me today it should require an Act of Congress.' Massie joined last week with a number of Democratic lawmakers to raise the alarm over potential U.S. military intervention in the Middle East without constitutionally-mandated congressional authorization. While Massie won't face a reelection contest until 2026, Trump has already unveiled a plan to challenge him and further enforce loyalty within the GOP ranks. 'The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard,' Trump added, without naming a prospective primary opponent. 'MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one.' Massie, who is known for his outspoken libertarian views, has survived primary challenges before and told Axios, which reported on the effort to oust him, that 'any serious person considering running should spend money on an independent poll before letting swampy consultants take them for an embarrassing ride.' Who is Thomas Massie? Massie, 54, was born in West Virginia and earned bachelor's and master's degrees in engineering from MIT in the 1990s before turning to local politics in 2010, when he ran and won the race for Judge Executive of Lewis County, Ky., amid the Tea Party wave. In 2012, after then-Rep. Geoff Davis announced his retirement in Kentucky's deep-red 4th congressional district, Massie, who described himself as a 'constitutional conservative,' won the Republican primary in a landslide. When Davis resigned early, Massie won the same-day special election and general election to succeed him, taking office two months earlier than his fellow freshmen representatives elected in 2012. One of Massie's first moves was to vote in January 2013 against party leader John Boehner for Speaker, opting instead to vote for fellow libertarian Justin Amash. (Boehner narrowly won the speakership but would go on to resign in 2015. Amash would go on to not run for reelection in 2020 and temporarily leave the Republican Party after earning Trump's wrath for consistent criticism of the President and supporting his impeachment.) Since then, Massie has made a name for himself by regularly voting against bills, often breaking with his caucus and sometimes siding with Democrats. In 2013, Politico dubbed him 'Mr. No.' In 2016, Massie said he would vote for Trump but do everything he could to 'rein him in' if he acts unconstitutionally. In 2017, Massie tried to explain how the same movement that propelled him into office could also propel someone like Trump, telling the Washington Examiner: 'All this time, I thought they were voting for libertarian Republicans. But after some soul searching I realized when they voted for Rand and Ron [Paul] and me in these primaries, they weren't voting for libertarian ideas—they were voting for the craziest son of a b----- in the race. And Donald Trump won best in class.' During Trump's first term, Massie was among a small group of Republicans who joined Democrats in trying to override Trump's veto of legislation that would block his national emergency declaration at the border in 2019. That same year, he was the sole Republican to vote against a resolution opposing the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement targeting Israel, and he was the sole no-vote across both parties on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. In March 2020, Trump called Massie a 'third rate Grandstander' and urged Republicans to throw him out of the party after the congressman tried to force a roll-call vote on a $2 trillion pandemic relief package. The stunt earned rebuke from both sides of the aisle, with former Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State John Kerry posting on social media: 'Breaking news: Congressman Massie has tested positive for being an a--hole. He must be quarantined to prevent the spread of his massive stupidity.' But in a U-turn, Trump endorsed Massie in 2022, calling him 'a first-rate Defender of the Constitution.' In 2022, Massie was the lone 'No' vote on a symbolic measure condemning antisemitism, a move he defended as a stance against 'censorship' but critics described as 'performative contrarianism.' Why Trump wants Massie out Massie was once again on Trump's bad side in 2023 when Trump shared posts on his Truth Social platform that called the congressman a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' and said he 'helped destroy the Tea Party and now he's trying to destroy MAGA.' That didn't stop Massie from endorsing Trump in the 2024 general election after previously backing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the Republican primary. But Trump finally had enough of Massie in March, when Massie voted against a continuing resolution to fund the federal government until September as Republicans worked to pass Trump's massive tax-and-spending legislative package, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' (OBBB). The President took to Truth Social to appeal for a primary candidate to challenge Massie in 2026: 'HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him. He's just another GRANDSTANDER, who's too much trouble, and not worth the fight. He reminds me of Liz Chaney [sic] before her historic, record breaking fall (loss!). The people of Kentucky won't stand for it, just watch. DO I HAVE ANY TAKERS???' Massie brushed off the criticism, telling Politico: 'I had the Trump antibodies for a while — I needed a booster.' He said at the time that he had no intention to cave to Trump's pressure and believed the President's grudge would 'blow over.' When Massie continued to voice loud opposition to the OBBB, which is estimated to add trillions to the national debt, Trump said of Massie in May: 'He doesn't understand government' and 'should be voted out of office.' The OBBB ultimately passed in the House in May, when Massie was one of two Republicans in the lower chamber to vote against it. It has yet to pass in the Senate, especially after Massie found a sympathizer to his concerns about the bill's impact on the deficit in tech billionaire Elon Musk. Trump's latest missive against Massie came as Massie has become a leading voice against military intervention in Iran. Days after Israel launched an attack on Iran, Massie cosponsored a war powers resolution with Rep. Ro Khanna (D, Calif.) aimed at blocking the U.S. government from engaging in 'unauthorized hostilities.' After Trump revealed U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Massie posted on X: 'This is not Constitutional.' While some have categorized Massie's wing of the MAGA base when it comes to the war as 'isolationists,' Massie told CBS on Sunday that he rejects the label, preferring 'non-interventionists.' 'We are exhausted,' he said. 'We are tired from all of these wars.' How is Trump planning to beat Massie? Trump is dedicating campaign firepower to oust Massie. Axios reported that Trump's senior political advisers, Tony Fabrizio and Chris LaCivita, will launch a political action committee devoted to defeating Massie in the May 2026 primary. LaCivita said the PAC will spend 'whatever it takes' to defeat Massie, who according to the team's internal polling was lagging behind the President in terms of support. As of now, only one candidate, Niki Lee Ethington, has announced that she will vie for Massie's congressional seat. Other names being floated, per Axios, are state senator Aaron Reed and state representative Kimberly Moser. 'Massie's long-time opposition to President Trump's working family tax cuts—and really anything to do with President Trump—is coming to an end,' LaCivita said in a statement. 'Thomas 'Little Boy' Massie will be fired.'
Associated Press
31 minutes ago
- Associated Press
How covering your face became a constitutional matter: Mask debate tests free speech rights
CHICAGO (AP) — Many of the protesters who flooded the streets of Los Angeles to oppose President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown wore masks or other face coverings, drawing scorn from him. 'MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests,' Trump posted on his social media platform, adding that mask-wearing protesters should be arrested. Protesters and their supporters argue Trump's comments and repeated calls by the Republican president's allies to ban masks at protests are an attempt to stifle popular dissent. They also note a double standard at play: In Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesters were at times confronted by officers who had their faces covered. And some U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have worn masks while carrying out high-profile raids in Los Angeles and other cities. All of which begs the question: Can something that covers your mouth protect free speech? Protesters say the answer is an emphatic yes. Several legal experts say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' Trump's post calling for a ban on masks came after immigration raids sparked protests, which included some reports of vandalism and violence toward police. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' he asked on Truth Social on June 8. The next day, Trump raged against the anti-ICE protests, calling for the arrest of people in face masks. It's not a new idea. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates warn of a rising number of laws banning masks being wielded against protesters and their impacts on people's right to protest and privacy amid mounting surveillance. The legal question became even more complicated when Democratic lawmakers in California introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks. That came amid concerns ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct. 'The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror,' state Sen. Scott Wiener said in a press release. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable.' 'While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,' McLaughlin said in a statement. State restrictions on mask-wearing At least 18 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, the center says. The laws aren't just remnants of the coronavirus pandemic. Many date back to the 1940s and '50s, when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and Trump's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters. Page also raised concerns about the laws being enforced inconsistently and only against movements the federal government doesn't like. In May, North Carolina Senate Republicans passed a plan to repeal a pandemic-era law that allowed the wearing of masks in public for health reasons, a move spurred in part by demonstrations against the war in Gaza where some protesters wore masks. The suburban New York county of Nassau passed legislation in August to ban wearing masks in public. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, last month sent a letter to the state's public universities stating protesters could be charged with a felony under the state's anti-mask law. Administrators at the University of North Carolina have warned protesters that wearing masks violates the state's anti-mask law, and University of Florida students arrested during a protest were charged with wearing masks in public. An unresolved First Amendment question People may want to cover their faces while protesting for a variety of reasons, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas, said Tim Zick, law professor at William and Mary Law School. 'Protecting protesters' ability to wear masks is part of protecting our First Amendment right to peacefully protest,' Zick said. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the federal government and Republican state lawmakers assert that the laws are intended not to restrict speech but to 'restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks.' Conversely, he said, First Amendment advocates oppose such laws because they deter people from protesting if they fear retaliation. Stone said the issue is an 'unresolved First Amendment question' that has yet to be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court 'has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment.' Few of these laws have been challenged in court, Stone said. And lower-court decisions on mask bans are mixed, though several courts have struck down broader anti-mask laws for criminalizing peaceful expression. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the right to speak anonymously has 'deep roots in the nation's founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies.' Federal agents wearing masks 'The right to speak anonymously allows Americans to express dissenting or unpopular opinions without exposing themselves to retaliation or harassment from the government,' Terr said. First Amendment advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have called the masks an attempt by ICE agents to escape accountability and intimidate immigrants. During a June 12 congressional hearing, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Viral videos appeared to show residents of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts confronting federal agents, asking them to identify themselves and explain why they were wearing masks. U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, decried 'the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain clothed officers and masks' in a June 2 letter to federal officials. Republican federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' ICE acting Director Todd Lyons said.
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
WATCH LIVE: Trump to huddle with top brass after hammering Iran's nuclear sites
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump to huddle with top brass after hammering Iran's nuclear sites
