Biden's Pardon May Have Already Backfired as Trump's Legal Team Uses It in New Court Filing
In a brief filed Tuesday, lawyers for President-elect Donald Trump outlined multiple arguments for why the New York business records case against him should be dismissed. At the forefront of their reasoning were statements made by President Joe Biden during his pardon of his son, Hunter Biden.
In the introduction to their 80-page motion to dismiss, attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove directly referenced Biden’s pardon announcement, which described Hunter as being “selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted” and “treated differently.”
They noted Biden’s assertion that “raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice” and argued that these remarks apply equally to Trump’s case. “Since [Manhattan District Attorney Alvin] Bragg took office, he has engaged in ‘precisely the type of political theater’ that President Biden condemned,” the attorneys stated in their filing to Judge Juan Merchan.
They further alleged that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had politically targeted Trump in two cases brought by special counsel Jack Smith. “This is the same DOJ that sent Matthew Colangelo to DA Bragg to help unfairly target President Trump in this empty and lawless case,” they argued.
The brief described the case as resting on “a contrived, defective, and unprecedented legal theory” regarding 2017 business record entries created far from Washington, where Trump was serving as president.
Trump’s conviction in May involved 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels via his then-attorney Michael Cohen before the 2016 election.
Typically, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but Bragg’s office elevated the charges by claiming they were intended to conceal another crime, though no specific crime was detailed during the trial. Bragg had initially suggested it related to an illegal campaign contribution made by Cohen.
Cohen had pleaded guilty to that charge and others in 2018, but election law experts suggest his guilty plea was voluntary and might not have resulted in a conviction had it gone to trial. The DOJ appeared to have accepted Cohen’s plea as part of a broader strategy to target Trump.
Nondisclosure agreements, such as the one signed by Daniels, are generally lawful and common practice.
In April, George Washington Law School professor Jonathan Turley called Braggs’ prosecution of Trump a “Frankenstein case,” saying, “They took a dead misdemeanor. They attached it to a dead alleged federal felony and zapped it back into life.”
“So many of us are just amazed to watch this actually walk into court because it’s not a recognizable crime that any of us have seen,” he added.
Blanche and Bove wrote in their motion to dismiss, “[T]his case would never have been brought were it not for President Trump’s political views, the transformative national movement established under his leadership, and the political threat that he poses to entrenched, corrupt politicians in Washington, D.C. and beyond.”
“Wrongly continuing proceedings in this failed lawfare case disrupts President Trump’s transition efforts and his preparations to wield the full Article II executive power authorized by the Constitution pursuant to the overwhelming national mandate granted to him by the American people on November 5, 2024,” they continued.
The lawyers cited the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which they argued bars local prosecutors from creating a legal impediment to him carrying out his duties.
“DA Bragg ran for office based on his promise to continue targeting President Trump. DA Bragg’s persistent efforts to make good on that promise while conditions in the City deteriorated, coupled with his improper extrajudicial statements after the charges were filed, created enormous appearances of impropriety in DANY’s front office,” Blanche and Bove wrote.
They concluded writing, “As President Biden put it yesterday, ‘Enough is enough’… This case, which should never have been brought, must now be dismissed.”
Blanche and Bove provided numerous other legal arguments why the case should be dismissed, including testimony allowed at trial by Daniels and Cohen, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity.
The lawyers signaled they are prepared to take their case to federal court, if Merchan should decide to rule against Trump.
The Hill reported that the judge is expected to announce a decision on whether he will set aside Trump’s verdict and dismiss the charges next week.