A New York judge has confirmed the guilty verdict in the hush money case involving President-elect Donald Trump, despite ongoing discussions about presidential immunity.
Trump’s legal team maintained that the evidence presented during his seven-week trial was shielded by the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity doctrine. This doctrine asserts that former presidents have total immunity from criminal prosecution for exercising core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg refuted these claims, stating that no evidence presented to the jury was protected. He further contended that even if it was, it was inconsequential compared to the “overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.”
Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. Prosecutors portrayed this as an attempt to unlawfully influence the election’s outcome.
The judge’s decision on whether to halt the proceedings during Trump’s term is still pending. Meanwhile, Trump’s other criminal proceedings have not been as successful following his presidential win.
Why It Matters: The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Trump and former presidents are entitled to immunity for acts within their Constitutional authority while in office, but not unofficial acts.
Image via Shutterstock
Did You Know?
- Congress Is Making Huge Investments. Get Tips On What They Bought And Sold Ahead Of The 2024 Election With Our Easy-to-Use Tool
This story was generated using Benzinga Neuro and edited by Shivdeep Dhaliwal
© 2026 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.
