Federal Judge Tells Trump to Quit Bothering Him
On Tuesday, a federal judge denied Trump’s second and last-ditch bid to transfer his New York Stormy Daniels hush money case to federal court.
Judge Hellerstein’s Swift Decision
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York found that there was no good cause to grant Trump’s lawyers permission to even file a motion. A request they had made on Tuesday morning after failing to do so last week in their initial attempt to delay the case.
Kudos to Hellerstein for wasting zero time in swatting away this unfounded attempt to delay. NBC News explained it thus:
The judge’s order said that in arguing “good cause” to move the case, Trump primarily argued that the state judge presiding over the criminal case, Juan Merchan, is biased against him and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s immunity ruling from July presents a valid federal defense for the hush money case.
Judge’s Reasoning
Hellerstein rejected both arguments, finding first that a state court judge’s alleged bias does not present a federal question that would justify jurisdiction in a federal court.
Hellerstein also held that his July 2023 conclusion he had made that removal of the case was not warranted — which followed briefing and an evidentiary hearing — remained the same because “the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.”
Unintended Consequences
Not only did Trump’s lawyers fail in their intended aim, they may well have also shot their client in the foot. The original NY trial judge, Juan Merchan, can now use this decision as a reason to keep the sentencing date of Sept 18th on the calendar.
In a scheduled Sept 16 conference to discuss the future of the case, Trump was sure to argue that his sentencing should be delayed until his immunity issues were resolved. But because Trump’s lawyers filed to have the trial removed to federal court, we now have a federal judge on record saying that immunity is not an issue.
Call it the law of unintended consequences — or, what happens when you hire Murphy as your lawyer.
A Case Study in Incompetence
But this is hardly the first time Trump’s lawyers have proved incompetent.
Last Thursday, his lawyers had tried again to have the Stormy Daniel’s hush money case removed from a New York State court to a federal court. The federal court rejected the filing. Not on the merits. But because Donald’s legal team either did not know — or ignored — the proper procedure for the process.
The lawyers submitted nearly three dozen documents with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asking Senior U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to remove the case to federal jurisdiction.
In the notice, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove pleaded for the court to take the reins of the “zombie” case away from both Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and NY Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan. The removal filing cites “evidence of local hostilities” as well as repeat “violations” of the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on presidential immunity.
Deficient Pleading
On Saturday, the court, in a docket entry, rejected Trump’s removal effort as a “deficient pleading”. Why? The court explained:
“The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): the PDF attached to the docket entry for the pleading is not correct; the wrong event type was used to file the pleading; Court’s leave has not been granted; the order granting permission to file the pleading was not attached.”
If you are going to screw up, you might as well be thorough.
Helpful Advice from the Court
Mindful that Trump legal bozos needed their hands held, the court went on to helpfully explain how to properly file the request — with advice on how to correct their basic filing errors.
The court also advised Trump’s team they needed to refile with the government’s consent or leave of court — and spanked the lawyers for not having asked for the required permission in the first place. Trump’s lawyers were evidently molded from the same dismal clay as their client — dumb and arrogant.
With this cheat sheet, Trump’s crack legal team tried again today. They raised the same old issues of the Marchan’d daughter being a Democratic consultant. And some additional nonsense about the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
We now know the result.
FAQs on Trump’s Last-Ditch Effort to Remove Stormy Daniels Case
Here are the top 10 FAQs related to Trump’s recent attempt to move the Stormy Daniels case to federal court:
- Q: What is the Stormy Daniels case?A: The Stormy Daniels case refers to a lawsuit filed by adult film actress Stormy Daniels against former President Donald Trump, alleging that he had an affair with her and then attempted to silence her with a hush money payment.
- Q: Why did Trump try to move the case to federal court?A: Trump attempted to move the case to federal court in an effort to avoid state court proceedings, which he believed might be more favorable to him.
- Q: What was the outcome of Trump’s last-ditch effort?A: Trump’s last-ditch effort to move the case to federal court was unsuccessful. The court ruled that the case should remain in state court.
- Q: What are the implications of the case remaining in state court?A: The case remaining in state court means that it will be subject to California state laws and procedures, which could potentially favor Stormy Daniels’ claims.
- Q: What are the potential consequences for Trump if he loses the case?A: If Trump loses the case, he could face financial penalties, damage to his reputation, and potential legal repercussions for any wrongdoing related to the alleged hush money payment.
- Q: How has Trump responded to the court’s decision?A: Trump has publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with the court’s decision, suggesting that the ruling was unfair and politically motivated.
- Q: What role does the First Amendment play in this case?A: The First Amendment is relevant because Trump’s lawyers argued that the hush money payment was protected speech under the First Amendment. However, the court did not find this argument compelling.
- Q: Can Trump appeal the court’s decision?A: Yes, Trump can appeal the court’s decision. However, appeals are typically lengthy and complex processes, and it is unclear whether an appeal would be successful.
- Q: How has public opinion reacted to Trump’s efforts to move the case?A: Public opinion has been largely critical of Trump’s actions, with many viewing his attempts to move the case as an attempt to avoid accountability and transparency.
- Q: What does this case mean for future political implications for Trump?A: The outcome of this case could have significant political implications for Trump, potentially damaging his reputation and influencing public perception of his leadership and integrity.
