Bragg case 'effectively over' in 'major victory,' Trump officials say
EXCLUSIVE: Trump officials told Fox News Digital that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s case is “effectively over," after he requested a stay until 2029, marking a “major victory" for President Trump.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump officials told Fox News Digital that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case is "effectively over" after Bragg requested a stay until 2029, celebrating the development as a "major victory" for President-elect Trump.
Bragg on Tuesday requested a stay in New York v. Trump until 2029, as the president’s attorneys motion to dismiss the case entirely.
New York prosecutors said Tuesday that, while they are likely to oppose the argument, they are open to being briefed on Trump defense attorneys’ case for complete dismissal.
"Prosecutors are trying to save face," a Trump official told Fox News Digital. "They know this case will soon be thrown out."
Another official told Fox News Digital that New York prosecutors’ "fallback" is a "five-year delay."
"No serious person believes this case will withstand that," the official said.
Trump spokesman Steven Cheung also told Fox News Digital that Bragg’s request for a stay is "a total and definitive victory for President Trump and the American People who elected him in a landslide."
"The Manhattan DA has conceded that this Witch Hunt cannot continue," Cheung, who was tapped to serve as White House communications director, said. "The lawless case is now stayed, and President Trump’s legal team is moving to get it dismissed once and for all."
TRUMP REQUESTS NY JUDGE OVERTURN GUILTY VERDICT, INDICTMENT AFTER SCOTUS IMMUNITY RULING
Another source close to Trump and his legal team told Fox News Digital that Bragg’s move "represents a total failure of the prosecution."
"Their case is in shambles and now everyone knows it is on its way to the ash heap of history," the source told Fox News Digital. "This thing is not coming back in five years — no one would argue it is."
Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree stemming from the years-long investigation related to alleged hush money payments run by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance initiated the investigation and Bragg prosecuted Trump.
After an unprecedented six-week trial in New York City, a jury found the president guilty on all counts.
Judge Juan Merchan last week granted a stay on all deadlines associated with conviction proceedings against Trump in the final weeks before he is sworn in as the 47th president of the United States – including the Nov. 26 sentencing date.
But Trump attorneys have requested that Merchan overturn the guilty verdict altogether, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office.
Trump's legal team argued that certain evidence presented by Bragg and New York prosecutors during the trial should not have been admitted, as they were "official acts."
WHERE DOES TRUMP'S NEW YORK SENTENCING STAND AFTER MASSIVE ELECTION WIN?
Specifically, Trump attorney Todd Blanche, who the president nominated to serve as deputy attorney general at the Justice Department, argued that testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks; former special assistant to the president Madeleine Westerhout; testimony regarding the Special Counsel’s Office and congressional investigations and the pardon power; testimony regarding President Trump’s response to FEC Inquiries; his presidential Twitter posts and other related testimony was impermissably admitted during trial.
Trump attorneys also pointed to Trump’s disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics as president.
Blanche said "official-acts evidence" that Bragg presented to the grand jury "contravened the holding in Trump because Presidents ‘cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution,'" the motion read. "The Presidential immunity doctrine recognized in Trump pertains to all ‘criminal proceedings,’ including grand jury proceedings when a prosecutor ‘seeks to charge’ a former President using evidence of official acts."
Blanche argued that Bragg "violated the Presidential immunity doctrine by using similar official-acts evidence in the grand jury proceedings that gave rise to the politically motivated charges in this case."
"Because an Indictment so tainted cannot stand, the charges must be dismissed," Blanche argued.
Blanche also explained that the Supreme Court’s decision does not allow for an "overwhelming evidence" or "harmless error" exception to "the profound institutional interests at stake."
The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on presidential immunity came from a question that stemmed from charges brought against Trump in a separate, federal case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith related to the events on Jan. 6, 2021 and any alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in that case.
Smith is winding down his cases against Trump following his election as the 47th president.
Smith’s classified records case against Trump was dismissed earlier this year by a federal judge in Florida who ruled that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed.
Merchan has not yet ruled on the immunity argument, which prosecutors anticipate being included in the coming dismissal motion from the defense.
What's Your Reaction?
