Christy Kelly, reporter at The Arizona Sun Times, said the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling on Monday in Trump v. United States that former President Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecution for official acts he took while in office may have a major impact on the former president’s conviction in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
On May 30, Trump was found guilty by a Manhattan jury on all 34 counts in the falsification of business records linked to the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal.
Trump was expected to be sentenced for the conviction next week on Thursday, July 11 by New York Judge Juan Merchan; however, that sentencing has been delayed as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling that U.S. presidents are immune from federal prosecution for official acts.
The Court also ruled, however, that U.S. presidents are not immune for unofficial acts.
Kelly said that the New York trial had included testimony from officials during the time of Trump’s presidency, which has now been classified as official acts according to the Supreme Court and could end up reopening the case or having the case be dismissed entirely.
One of the former Trump-era officials that testified at the New York trial was Hope Hicks, who served as Trump’s communications director while he was president.
“[Hicks] was an employee, so there is going to be a high presumption that it is going to be an official act, especially since she was [Trump’s] communications director. When I really went back and I looked at the different things that Judge Merchan is going to have to look at, he’s going to have to look at each piece of evidence that came down. When you look at each piece of evidence, he’s going to have to weigh it. There were tweets that were sent when Trump was president that came in and then there were also discussions – I think what is actually more interesting is Michael Cohen and the payments, those were also discussed from the Oval Office and are those official acts? Are they not official acts? That’s left to be decided and that’s a gray area,” Kelly explained on Wednesday’s edition of The Michael Patrick Leahy Show.
Kelly said Merhan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg also halted sentencing for the conviction amid the Supreme Court’s ruling as the nation’s highest court said that courts must look at the “outer perimeter” of Trump’s conduct and assume that it is an official act within his capacity.
“Another key phrase that [the Supreme Court] used is any conduct within the outer perimeter. So I think it was genius that the court put that in because that means you have to look at what is the outer perimeter of his conduct and assume that it is an official act within his capacity,” Kelly said.
“Definitely, this is why Judge Merchan and Alvin Bragg put the brakes on it because if any of those official acts came in, they cannot even be used as evidence and in the court of law…in this case, they said a president has to be able to do his job without being scared of being prosecuted and [official acts] cannot come in whatsoever. So that’s why this case had to put the brakes on it,” Kelly added.
Noting how pundits predict that Merchan will not “do much” with the case amid the Supreme Court’s ruling, Kelly said she believes the opposite.
“I’m seeing most people saying that they don’t think Judge Merchan is going to do very much. They don’t think that he’s going to rule that these are official acts. I think he is going to rule that some of these are official acts and they have to be out because nobody wants their case taken up to the Supreme Court and overruled. No judge wants that,” Kelly said.
Regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling, Kelly said she believes the Court wanted to “take away” the fear of lawfare being used against not only Trump but also for presidents moving forward.
“This is where elections have consequences. We have to remember that this is [Trump’s] Supreme Court. Now, they are fair. All of the liberals are melting down. No, they’re not biased, but they have given presidents a lot more authority than they have had in the past. This is the liberals own doing. How many times have they impeached him, threatened to impeach. Still, if he gets reelected, I’m sure they have an impeachment waiting just in their hand for something. So I think the court wanted to take the fear of prosecution, the fear of lawfare of our presidents off of the table,” Kelly said.
Watch the full interview:
– – –
Kaitlin Housler is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. Follow Kaitlin on X / Twitter.
