Alvin Bragg’s Unexpected Angle in Trump’s Felony Case and Immunity Debate

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg opposes dismissing Trump’s felony conviction but may pause sentencing during presidency.

At a Glance

Alvin Bragg opposes Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his felony conviction in New York
Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments
Bragg is willing to pause proceedings pending the judge’s decision on Trump’s dismissal motion
The case may be deferred until Trump completes his term in the White House
Bragg argues presidential immunity doesn’t require dismissal of pre-immunity criminal proceedings

Bragg’s Opposition to Trump’s Dismissal Motion

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has taken a firm stance against President-elect Donald Trump’s efforts to have his felony conviction dismissed. The charges, stemming from falsified business records related to hush money payouts, have placed Bragg at the center of a complex legal and political situation. Despite Trump’s recent election victory over Kamala Harris, Bragg maintains that the case should proceed, albeit with potential modifications to accommodate Trump’s new role as President.

The conviction, handed down in May, found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records. These charges are related to payments made to an adult film actress before the 2016 election, which were allegedly disguised as legal expenses. Under New York law, this Class E felony carries a maximum sentence of four years, highlighting the gravity of the situation for the former and future president.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg informed a New York court on Tuesday that it plans to oppose a motion by President-elect Donald Trump's legal team to dismiss his hush-money case. https://t.co/bf4C9YmJBW

— LEX 18 News (@LEX18News) November 19, 2024

Balancing Presidential Immunity and Justice

Bragg’s approach to this unprecedented situation reflects a careful consideration of both constitutional duties and the unique circumstances surrounding a sitting president facing criminal charges. While opposing the dismissal, Bragg has expressed willingness to pause the proceedings pending the judge’s decision on Trump’s motion. This strategy aims to navigate the complex terrain of presidential immunity while maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

“No current law establishes that a president’s temporary immunity from prosecution requires dismissal of a post-trial criminal proceeding that was initiated at a time when the defendant was not immune from criminal prosecution and that is based on unofficial conduct for which the defendant is also not immune,” Bragg wrote in a letter to Judge Juan Merchan. “Rather, existing law suggests that the court must balance competing constitutional interests and proceed ‘in a manner that preserves both the independence of the executive and the integrity of the criminal justice system.'” – Alvin Bragg

The District Attorney’s office argues that a president’s temporary immunity does not necessitate the dismissal of a criminal proceeding that began before the defendant assumed office. This position is rooted in the Supreme Court’s precedent, which established that presidential immunity covers only official acts, not personal conduct.

Potential Deferral of Proceedings

In a move that acknowledges the unique challenges posed by this case, Bragg has suggested the possibility of deferring criminal proceedings until after Trump’s presidential term concludes. This approach aims to balance the constitutional interests at stake, ensuring that the justice system remains impartial while respecting the independence of the executive branch.

“Given the need to balance competing constitutional interests, consideration must be given to various non-dismissal options that may address any concerns raised by the pendency of a post-trial criminal proceeding during the presidency, such as deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of defendant’s upcoming presidential term,” Bragg wrote. – Alvin Bragg

This potential deferral could see the case paused through Trump’s second term, allowing for the full execution of his presidential duties without the immediate pressure of ongoing legal proceedings. However, it’s important to note that this does not equate to dismissal of the charges, but rather a temporary suspension of the legal process.

As this unprecedented legal scenario unfolds, all eyes will be on Judge Juan Merchan’s decision regarding Trump’s motion to dismiss and Bragg’s proposed alternative of deferring proceedings. The outcome will likely set a significant precedent for how the American legal system handles criminal cases involving sitting presidents, potentially shaping the landscape of presidential accountability for years to come.