President Donald Trump's lawyers will try to persuade a New York appeals court Thursday to throw out his hush money conviction, two years after it made history.
The conviction, on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to obscure a $130,000 payment to adult film performer Stormy Daniels, continues to nettle Trump enough that he denounced it on social media as recently as September. The president denies any wrongdoing, and he has turned to state and federal courts in hopes of unwinding the verdict.
He is not expected to attend Thursday's court session.
RELATED STORY | Who is Todd Blanche? What to know about Trump's pick for acting attorney general
The appeal turns on complex legal disputes, but political overtones aren't hard to find. The very first paragraph of one of the Trump team's court filings contends the case was the flimsy product of “immense political pressure” on a Democratic prosecutor to go after Trump — rhetoric that echoes the Republican president's own oft-repeated claims in the court of public opinion.
In court papers, Trump's attorneys have assailed prosecutors' legal theory as “a house of cards” built on a shaky combination of alleged state and federal offenses, with “clearly insufficient” evidence and problematic jury instructions.
The appeal also concerns whether jurors should have been allowed to hear testimony about supposed White House conversations, workflow and even Trump social media posts during his first term. His lawyers cite presidential immunity for official acts, and they argue his official conduct included responding to the Daniels drama once it became public in 2018.
“When a president addresses the nation to defend himself from allegations of personal misconduct (as all presidents do), or discusses such communications with his aides, he is carrying out his constitutional duties and is protected by immunity,” lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. wrote in a filing this October.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office counters that the legal theory and jury instructions were legitimate and that the White House-related evidence was fair game. Some was public record, some was a general description of office practices, and the conversations were “unofficial conduct,” prosecutors say.
“A president's discussions about a purely private matter, even with a White House advisor, do not constitute ‘official acts for which the president is immune,’” Bragg’s appeals chief, Steven Wu, wrote in a filing in July. Besides, he said, there was “a mountain” of other evidence against Trump.
RELATED STORY | Biden's campaign announces a $50 million advertising blitz highlighting Trump's conviction
The May 2024 verdict made Trump the first former — and now current — U.S. president with a criminal conviction. While historic, it didn’t impede his return to the White House or subject him to any punishment.
The trial involved $130,000 that Daniels got from Trump's then-fixer and lawyer, Michael Cohen, weeks before the 2016 election. The money bought, for a time, her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with the married Trump a decade earlier. He says that nothing sexual happened between them.
Trump's company reimbursed Cohen in 2017, logging those payments as legal expenses.
Saying the transactions all were meant to keep unflattering information about Trump away from the electorate, prosecutors argue that he “orchestrated a conspiracy” that violated federal campaign finance laws, among others.
Trump's lawyers argue there’s only “weak” evidence that he even knew about Cohen’s dealings at the time. His trial attorneys also said that payments to Cohen were indeed legal expenses, and that any hush money expended on Trump's behalf wasn't hidden campaign spending, just an effort to avoid embarrassing his family.
The distinction matters because, under New York law, falsifying business records isn't a felony unless it's done with an intent to commit or conceal a separate crime.
While pursuing his state appeal, Trump also has been trying to shift the case to federal court and have it dismissed on immunity grounds. A federal judge said no — for the third time — in August. Trump's attorneys are appealing that decision, and arguments on that appeal are set for Nov. 16.
