What are the Legal Grounds for this Hail Mary Demand by Trump’s Legal Team?

Trump’s Lawyers Demanding Dismissal presents us with a curious conundrum. Is a convicted felon, albeit President Elect of the United States entitled to evade justice because of his political status? While not knowing what Judge Juan Merchan might decide, we are taking liberties by writing a response to the demand as if we were Judge Merchan. We are writing a quasi legal opinion that must not be considered as fact. In addition, we are not a lawyer so take what is said here with a large scoop of salt. Speculation does not consist of “Alternative Facts” rather it predicts the strength of the argument made by Trump’s legal team and a probable but not certain response from the Judge.

We are speculating here and nothing more. Acting as I suspect, even hope Judge Merchan himself might act, my role here is to briefly weigh the Trump legal claims against established legal precedents, statutory frameworks, and the broader interests of justice. Of course this is a fictional interpretation but it is supported by precedent. Otherwise it is a stab in the dark as to what the real Judge Juan Merchan might do or say.

Presidential Immunity and the “President-Elect” Argument

Trump’s attorneys claim that presidential immunity extends to a president-elect, a position not explicitly supported by existing legal precedents. Presidential immunity, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in *Nixon v. Fitzgerald* (1982),

protects sitting presidents from civil suits for official acts conducted during their tenure. However, this immunity does not extend to criminal acts, as clarified in *Clinton v. Jones* (1997), which permitted a civil lawsuit to proceed against President Clinton for acts unrelated to his official duties.

Trump’s Lawyers Demanding Dismissal using the assertion that immunity should extend to a president-elect is novel and untested in court. It rests on extrapolations of existing principles rather than explicit legal precedent. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel memos cited by the defense primarily address the inability to indict or prosecute a sitting president, not a president-elect, and do not suggest retroactive immunity for crimes committed before holding office. Thus, this argument appears speculative and lacks a firm legal foundation.

The Presidential Transition Act and “Orderly Transition of Power

The attorneys invoke the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, emphasizing the importance of an orderly transfer of executive power. While the act underscores the importance of continuity and preparedness during transitions, it does not provide legal immunity for criminal conduct. Ensuring an orderly transition is an administrative concern and does not override the judicial process or absolve criminal liability.

Constitutional Concerns About Judicial Interference do not Square with Trump’s Lawyers Demanding Dismissal

Trump’s attorneys argue that allowing sentencing to proceed would interfere with his constitutional duties as president-elect and, later, as president. However, the Constitution does not grant immunity for actions unrelated to official presidential functions. Trump’s conviction pertains to personal conduct—falsifying business records—and not acts within the scope of presidential authority. To accept this reasoning would create a dangerous precedent, effectively placing presidents and president-elects above the law for crimes committed before or during their campaigns.

Delay Tactics and Practical Implications as Trump’s Lawyers Demanding Dismissal

Requesting an extension until Dec. 20 to file a motion appears to be a stalling tactic. This delay would almost certainly push sentencing beyond the inauguration, complicating the legal landscape. If Trump assumes office before sentencing, his attorneys could argue further immunity, creating an endless loop of legal maneuvering to evade accountability.

Allowing such delays undermines the principle that no individual is above the law. The judiciary must balance fairness with efficiency, ensuring justice is not delayed to the detriment of public trust.

As the Fictional Presiding Judge: My Response to Demanding Dismissal is as Follows

1. On the Claim of Presidential Immunity

The argument that presidential immunity applies to a president-elect is without merit. Immunity for official acts does not encompass personal or pre-presidency criminal conduct. The Constitution and legal precedent do not support the expansion of immunity to this extent.

2. On the Request for Dismissal

The motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds is speculative and unsupported by legal precedent. It risks establishing a precedent that undermines the judiciary’s ability to hold elected officials accountable for criminal behavior.

3. On the Timetable Request

Delaying sentencing until after Dec. 20 appears strategically designed to avoid accountability. This court will not permit procedural delays that serve no purpose beyond evasion of justice.

4. On Broader Implications

Allowing this reasoning would send a dangerous message: candidates can commit crimes with impunity, provided they win an election. The rule of law is foundational to democracy, and permitting such a precedent would destabilize the legal system more than any single conviction.

5. Conclusion

The defense’s arguments rely on tenuous legal interpretations and strategic delay. While every defendant is entitled to vigorous representation, these tactics strain credibility and threaten the integrity of the judicial process. As Judge Merchan, I deny the request for immediate dismissal, set a firm sentencing date, and proceed to enforce the rule of law without undue delay. Accountability must prevail, regardless of political status or timing.

Only time will tell the true story, but this may be a reasonable facsimile, albeit brief in nature, to the Real Judge Merchan’s probable decision. I wonder if Trump’s Legal Team expects their Hail Mary demand to work?

Disclaimer: The images and videos in this post are AI-generated creations, intended purely for illustrative and conceptual purposes. They are not real-life representations and should not be interpreted as such. Their sole purpose is to offer a visual means of exploring the topics discussed in this post.