Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump are citing Sen. John Fetterman’s (D-PA) view that the merits of the Manhattan business records case are “bullshit” in their latest filing in support of dismissing the case and vacating the verdict.
Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove submitted a 23-page filing on Thursday, which was made public Friday, to support the dismissal motion they filed last week.
In the second sentence of the document, Blanche and Bove highlighted Fetterman’s Wednesday Truth Social post, in which he strongly criticized both the case against Trump and the cases Hunter Biden faced before his pardon.
“The Trump hush money and Hunter Biden cases were both bullshit, and pardons are appropriate,” Fetterman wrote. “Weaponizing the judiciary for blatant, partisan gain diminishes the collective faith in our institutions and sows further division.”
Trump’s attorneys wrote that Fetterman’s categorization of the behavior of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office (DANY) “is apt.” They then slammed Bragg’s office for “an extremely troubling and irresponsible analogy” laid out in their brief, filed December 9 in opposition to the defense’s motion to dismiss.
Balance and Bove contend the analogy, which compared Trump to a dead defendant, serves as evidence that Bragg and prosecutors lack the ability to separate the pursuit of justice from political motivations:
DANY’s brief includes a request that the Court disregard the New York Court of Appeals and fabricate unconstitutional “abatement” law, all based on an extremely troubling and irresponsible analogy between President Trump—who has survived multiple assassination attempts, and will soon be “the only person who alone composes a branch of government”—and a hypothetical dead defendant…That unhinged contention demonstrates conclusively that DA Bragg and DANY cannot be trusted to separate their political motivations and careerist ambitions from their obligations to seek justice. DANY has no credibility left in these proceedings, which must be terminated immediately to prevent additional constitutional and legal violations.
Blanche and Bove again point to the Presidential Transition Act and presidential immunity doctrine, saying it mandates the immediate dismissal of the case. They write that criminal “proceedings interfere with the ongoing transition process, including preparations that are necessary for President Trump to ‘effectively’ carry out ‘constitutionally designated functions.'”
“Therefore, under the Presidential Transition Act, immediate dismissal and vacatur of the jury’s verdicts are necessary,” they add.
The filing also notes that Bragg’s office did not remotely address the actual text of the Presidential Transition Act in its opposition briefing filed Monday.
“The Act reinforces the doctrine of sitting-President immunity because, as the statute clearly recognizes, the President-elect’s transition activities are integral and preparatory to his imminent actions as President,” Blanche and Bove add.
While Trump seeks dismissal, Bragg’s office on Monday proposed putting a four-year freeze on sentencing throughout Trump’s term or terminating further proceedings without vacating Trump’s conviction, which is used typically in the context of abatement-by-death. This is the proposal that Blanche and Bove contend was based on “an extremely troubling and irresponsible analogy.”
Now, all eyes fall on Judge Juan Merchan, who will decide the case’s fate.
The case is People v. Trump, No. 71543/23, in the Supreme Court of New York County.
