This week, future deputy attorney general Todd Blanche and principal deputy attorney general Emil Bove conveyed to Justice Juan Merchan that the protection of the republic necessitates the immediate dismissal of the criminal charges against Donald Trump. Their assertion hinges on the belief that adhering to the federal Constitution, along with the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, is crucial for ensuring a smooth transition of executive power following President Trump’s decisive triumph in the 2024 Presidential election.
They emphasized that “an immediate dismissal of this case is essential” as “the Constitution prohibits placing into the hands of a single prosecutor and grand jury the practical power to interfere with the ability of a popularly elected President to execute his constitutional duties.” This statement echoes an Office of Legal Counsel memo from 2000, which argued that a sitting president enjoys immunity from criminal indictment or prosecution. While Trump has already faced indictment and conviction, he contends that the ongoing appeals process should prevent the state judge from imposing a sentence on him. Moreover, he claims a quasi-presidential status during this transition period, as he seeks another individual to fulfill the role of Blanche and Bove’s superior.
It’s rather ironic that these officials initially sought to delay sentencing to avoid political ramifications, only to later assert that the entirety of the case must be dismissed on political grounds. This contradiction raises questions about their motivations and the implications for justice. Meanwhile, DA Bragg opposes the dismissal of the case, advocating instead for a postponement until the conclusion of Trump’s presidency. Yet, he is acutely aware that his strategy may have been undermined after two years of procrastination on this prosecution.
In a parallel development at federal court, Trump’s legal team is pursuing a different agenda. In this arena, the president-elect is suing Bob Woodward and Simon & Schuster for copyright infringement related to an audiobook that utilized tapes recorded during his initial term. He’s alleging a conspiracy involving the unauthorized compilation of over eight hours of ‘raw’ interviews, seeking a substantial sum of $50 million as compensation for the damages endured. Recently, Trump filed an opposition against the defendants’ motion to dismiss his revised complaint — a strategic maneuver suggesting persistence in legal challenges. However, the legal community remains largely indifferent as they turn their focus elsewhere, leaving Trump eager to advance his claims.
In a recent correspondence to Judge Paul Gardephe, Trump’s attorney Robert Garson expressed the former President’s enthusiasm to move forward with the case, highlighting the urgency of addressing the unauthorized commercial use of Trump’s voice recorded during informal interviews. He noted, “The Court is aware that President Trump is soon due to be inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States of America. The issues in this case are both timely and ripe, given the potential for further unaccounted profits being generated from the President’s voice.” Garson further assured that the discovery process could be tailored to minimize disruptions to the President’s impending responsibilities.
Additionally, Trump remains actively engaged in various civil litigations, targeting networks like ABC and CBS, while also threatening lawsuits against The New York Times and Penguin Random House for a staggering $10 billion. He seems to have ample time to engage in these pursuits, even as he promotes merchandise from businesses he has not fully divested from during this political cycle. However, while he juggles these civil cases, the ongoing criminal proceedings loom as a significant threat to the integrity of democracy.
Liz Dye resides in Baltimore, where she creates content for the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.
To stay updated with the latest developments in litigation, regulations, and financial services trends, subscribe to Finance Docket, a collaborative effort between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
