Trump Lawyers Seek to Overturn Hush Money Conviction in New York Appeals Court

NEW YORK: 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. 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. 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.