NY fights to save Trump hush-money sentencing, saying it's a harmless error if evidence he's immune from entered the case

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

35% : In tweeting, "Trump was not performing, or even describing, any official presidential act in conveying his personal opinions about his personal attorney and a private nondisclosure agreement entered into prior to his Presidency," the filing says.
30% : These tweets describe unofficial acts unrelated to his official duties, and for which Trump has no immunity, the filing argues.
29% : The defense argued the grand jurors who voted to indict Trump and the trial jurors who voted to convict him in the hush-money case were all shown significant evidence involving Trump's official acts, and that this evidence is now retroactively inadmissible.
27% : Trump was indicted in April, 2023, and convicted in May, 2024, on 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to hide hush money he paid to porn actor Stormy Daniels as part of a conspiracy to illegally influence the 2016 election.
27% : "The jury also heard testimony by Hope Hicks, Trump's former White House communications director, who described an incriminating 2018 conversation in the Oval Office in which Trump expressed relief that Daniels' claims to a one-night sexual encounter surfaced only after, not before the 2016 election.
27% : If they do, Trump will be sentenced September 18 as planned, the judge has said.
26% : Lawyers for Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the prosecution filing.
21% : The filing argues that Trump is wrong in now stamping much of the prosecutor's case "official act evidence.
12% : Additional challenged evidence -- an incriminating government ethics form Trump signed in 2018, and snippets of trial testimony by Cohen and by Madeleine Westerhout, Trump's former White House assistant -- all likewise concerned private, not presidential, matters, the filing says.
11% : As for tossing the underlying indictment -- a move that would take Trump off the hook entirely -- the papers argue that Trump would have been indicted even if grand jurors did not see what the defense calls "official act" evidence.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.