Latest news with #TrumpAppeal
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump seeks to delay appeal of $83 million judgment in E. Jean Carroll case
The Justice Department and attorneys for President Donald Trump on Friday asked a federal appeals court in New York to delay oral arguments scheduled for next week in Trump's appeal of his $83 million defamation case. Trump is appealing a 2024 verdict ordering him to pay former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll $83 million for defaming her in 2019 when he denied her accusation that he sexually assaulted her in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s. Trump has denied all allegations. MORE: Appeals court says DOJ cannot represent Trump in appeal of E. Jean Carroll case On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Trump's attempt to have the government substitute for him as a party in the case -- and his attorneys now argue that they should be allowed to appeal before oral arguments take place on June 24. "The United States and President Trump are entitled to immediate review of the panel's erroneous Westfall Act decision by this Court en banc and, if necessary, by the Supreme Court," a joint filing from Trump and the Justice Department said Friday. DOJ lawyers say that since some of Trump's alleged conduct in the case fell within the scope of his role as president, the Justice Department should be able to defend him in court. "The Attorney General certified that President Trump was acting within the scope of his federal office or employment at the time of his 2017 statements, made from the White House, out of which Plaintiff-Appellee's claims arose. As a result, the United States should have been substituted as a defendant in place of President Trump," they argued in Friday's filing. The 2nd Circuit last week upheld a separate, $5 million damage award to Carroll that Trump must pay.
BBC News
11-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Trump attorneys argue for hush-money appeal to move to federal court
Attorneys for Donald Trump on Wednesday argued that the appeal of his felony conviction in New York should be moved to federal court because the case related to official acts as president, while the state said it was too late to make the was convicted last May of lying in relation to a hush-money payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, which he appealed. Then, in July, the US Supreme Court granted the president immunity for official acts. For Trump's legal team, the goal of moving to federal court is for the conviction to be overturned on immunity sides made their case during a one-hour hearing before a three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump's attorney, Jeffrey Wall, argued that the president's appeal belonged in federal court because the Manhattan District Attorney's Office chose to include evidence that they say relates to Trump's official acts as president, including testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks."Everything about this cries out for federal court," Mr Wall told the three-judge panel. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, meanwhile, argued Trump's legal team took too long to ask for the case to be moved, after his sentencing. "After sentencing, removal is no longer available," said Steven Wu of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. "Even if it were technically available, there are compelling reasons not to permit it."Mr Wu also disagreed with Trump's attorneys that some of the evidence presented in the hush-money trial related to his official acts. He gave an example of a postal worker who robbed someone while not at work, but then chose to confess his crimes in the postal office. The confession in the office, he argued, would not be related to the postal worker's official duties. Trump's crime, Mr Wu argued, "was completed before the White House evidence". During the hearing, the three judges pressed both sides, noting the case was "extraordinary" and "highly unusual". One judge told Mr Wall it would be "quite anomalous" for an appeal to be moved to federal another noted that the Supreme Court in their immunity ruling used "broad" language to describe which evidence is related to "official acts" as president. The panel is expected to issue a written opinion at a later date. Trump's attorneys argued last September to move his New York case to the federal courts, but that request was denied by US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein. The 2nd US Circuit court is now hearing the appeal of that decision. Trump was sentenced in the hush-money case ten days before taking office in January. He was given an unconditional discharge, meaning he received no fines, probation or jail time, but the conviction will stay on his record. Trump was indicted in several criminal state and federal cases before his latest run for office, but the New York case was the only one to go to trial before he won the presidency. Trump's defence lawyers in the New York case, including Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, have since been promoted to positions in the justice department.
Forbes
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Trump Hush Money Conviction: How Appeals Court Could Kill Trump's Felony Charges
Federal appeals court judges suggested Wednesday they may be willing to move President Donald Trump's appeal of his 34-count criminal conviction from state to federal court, a move that could make it easier to throw out the only felony conviction against Trump—and all but erase the president's felony charges. President Donald Trump's booking photo at the Fulton County Jail on August 24, 2023 in Atlanta, ... More Georgia. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Wednesday in Trump's request to have his appeal of his conviction heard in federal court, rather than New York state court, which is where he was convicted last year on 34 counts of falsifying business records. The three-judge panel, which included judges appointed by Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, suggested they may be amenable to Trump's request, arguing that since the Supreme Court ruled after Trump was found guilty that he can't be criminally charged based on 'official acts' in office, there's a 'strong interest' in letting a federal court decide the 'weighty interests' at play in the case. Trump was convicted on felony charges stemming from hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels, which were made before the 2016 election, but his attorneys have argued the case should be moved to federal court and thrown out, because some of the evidence used at trial was from his time as president, particularly testimony from people who worked with him at the White House during his first term. The president is appealing the case despite facing no sentence for his crimes—due to the logistical issues any sentence would pose with his presidency—and wants to move it to federal court so the case will be thrown out. If the case was in federal court, Trump could ask to have the conviction dismissed because it involved evidence related to his official acts as president—and a court could be likely to grant the request given the Supreme Court's ruling last year, which said Trump's immunity from some criminal charges includes charges that are based on evidence from his official presidential acts. The case has so far stayed in state court because judges have ruled the case only concerns Trump's actions as a private citizen, rather than as president: New York Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the trial, has thrown out Trump's request to move or throw out the charges, as did U.S. District Judge Alan Hellerstein, who ruled the payments at issue in the case 'were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.' The three-judge panel expressed some skepticism Wednesday of Trump's efforts to have the case moved after he had already been sentenced, noting that moving a criminal case from state to federal court at such a late stage would be unprecedented. The judges didn't rule out the possibility that doing so would be allowed, however, pushing back on prosecutors' suggestion that it's impossible to move the case at such a late stage and saying there are 'competing interpretations' of the law on that issue. Judges also questioned prosecutors' claims that the evidence concerning Trump's time as president shouldn't be enough to justify moving the case—because the evidence was relatively minor—noting the Supreme Court's language on evidence being included under presidential immunity was 'very broad' and thus could even include such minor testimony. While judges noted the unprecedented nature of criminal charges against a former president means the 'boundaries [of the case] are not clear,' they suggested they could be leaning toward allowing the case to be removed to federal court, asking both parties in the case about what the logistics would look like if they did order removal. The hush money case is the only criminal case against Trump that actually went to trial, as the president has been overwhelmingly able to get out of the criminal charges against him. The two federal cases brought against the now-president were dropped in the wake of his election, and while Trump's other set of state criminal charges in Georgia remain pending, that case is a long shot to move forward. A state court ruled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who led the prosecution, should be disqualified over her romantic relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade. The Georgia Supreme Court still has to weigh in on the dispute, but if it agrees Willis should be kicked off the case, it remains to be seen when Trump could go to trial—and if he ever will. That means if the appeals court does rule Trump's hush money case should move to federal court and the case is subsequently dismissed, it could erase the only criminal conviction against Trump and the president's status as a 'convicted felon.' It's unclear how long it will take the appeals court to rule on the case. If the court agrees with lower court judges and declines to move the case to federal court, Trump could take the dispute to the Supreme Court and ask justices there to rule on his conviction. Trump will be backed at the federal appeals court by the Department of Justice—which includes the defense attorneys that previously represented him in a personal capacity at his criminal trial. The president appointed his former legal team to high-ranking roles at the DOJ after he won the election, making the lead attorney at his trial, Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General and also elevating attorney Emil Bove, who is now serving at DOJ and has also been nominated to become a federal judge. With his former lawyers now working for the government, Trump will be represented in a personal capacity Wednesday by new attorneys from the firm Sullivan & Cromwell. A jury in Manhattan found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts following a weekslong criminal trial in May 2024. Trump was convicted based on his checks to Cohen reimbursing the lawyer for his payment to Daniels, as prosecutors successfully alleged the checks were falsely labeled as being for legal services. The president has strongly denied the charges and conviction against him and pleaded not guilty, decrying the case as a politically motivated 'witch hunt' against him. After the sentencing got postponed for months in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling giving Trump some immunity from legal charges, followed by Trump's election, Merchan formally sentenced Trump for his crimes in January. Trump was sentenced to an 'unconditional discharge,' meaning the conviction will stand and Trump can be formally called a 'convicted felon,' but he faces no punishments for his crimes. The judge said at the sentencing that the decision was solely because of Trump's election as president, saying an unconditional discharge is the only 'lawful sentence' that would not '[encroach] upon the highest office in the land.'
Fox News
04-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Walz recalls how son explained Trump's appeal to young men and how the president creates a sense of belonging
Former vice presidential candidate Gov. Tim Walz shared an anecdote on Friday in which his son, Gus Walz, explained President Donald Trump's unique appeal with young men. Since the 2024 election, the Democratic Party has been reckoning with its lack of support from young men. The New York Times recently published a report claiming that Democrats are spending $20 million on a study called, "Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan." The project aims to analyze "the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces" of male voters. Walz shared some insight from his son, however, that came without such a price tag. "[Gus] is pretty in tune to this, but what he said was, he said, 'Dad, a lot of these young guys – they're not voting on the policy issues,'" Tim Walz said during an interview on the "Grounded" podcast. "And he wasn't dissing them, he said they may know the policy issues, but most of them don't. They're doing it because there's a sense of excitement, a sense of thrill in this, it's entertainment or whatever." Walz highlighted how different this approach is from many experienced adults in the political world, noting, "We all dismiss that," arguing many Trump critics say "'Donald Trump's a clown,' you know, 'Donald Trump's rallies are a clown.'" Nonetheless, Walz argued the core of Trump's appeal is telling young men, "You've got a place to belong." "I think — this is me just pontificating for what it's worth," he said. "Social media and other things have disconnected people more than they were. We were more connected to my generation. It was easier to be a kid when I was growing up." He then warned that Trump taps into a deep need in American society. "And I've always said this as a teacher: If you don't give a kid a place to belong, they'll go find one. So you want them to be involved in sports and music and things in school, because they will go find a group of folks," he said. "And I think Donald Trump understands belonging, understands groups, I mean, look at it. He gives them a uniform, the red hat. He gives them some chants, some talking points, whatever. It's not all that different than when we build sports teams in high school. 'You belong, you are part of this,'" Walz added. "It's not so much the policies," he said, echoing his son's comment. "I think it's incredibly dangerous, but I don't think we went out to get them. We didn't go out to make them feel a part of this."
