Trump’s Legal Team Labels Daniels Case a ‘Zombie’

President Donald Trump’s attorneys have recently presented to a federal judge that the case involving Stormy Daniels is essentially a ‘zombie case’ that should have by all means ended a long time ago. They expressed a strong conviction that the case has stalled for longer than it should have, firmly believing that it was high time for a federal judge to take over. The counsel’s stance highlighted the unnecessary prolongation of the situation, arguing for its transfer from the New York Superior Court.

The legal team referred to the case as a ‘zombie’, indicating that it meandered on despite having no real vitality or purpose. This nomenclature was borrowed from former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, who had used it to describe the case in his 2023 book, ‘People vs. Donald Trump’. His perspective was that despite it being repeatedly reanimated, the case had no legal weight.

Pomerantz’s observation conveys that, under New York State law, paying hush money is not a crime. He opined in his book that this aspect of the case ‘did not amount to much in legal terms.’ President Trump’s legal counsel echoed this view, noting the payment to Ms. Daniels as uncrucial in the larger context.

The former president’s legal counsel was driven to respond in the fashion they did, based on Pomerantz’s book. In it, Pomerantz was pushed to appear before a Congressional hearing to elaborate on his remarks. These proceedings were of particular interest as the attorneys argued the need for a transfer in the President’s sentencing to federal court from the initial venue.

Trump’s attorneys confidently rely on the precedent set by the Supreme Court on July 1 regarding presidential immunity. This ruling significantly favors the president by placing certain aspects of their official acts beyond the reach of prosecution. This development further fortified their assertion to move the sentencing to a federal court.

Judge Juan Merchan had earlier postponed the sentencing scheduled for July until the following September. His motivation being to properly assess the implications of the Supreme Court’s position on presidential immunity. The legal team’s proposition squarely focuses on this ruling as it directly impacts their client.

Supporting their stance, President Trump’s legal team suggested that a substantial part of the trial evidence was unjustifiably included, contravening the principle of presidential immunity. They displayed their disapproval of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office (DANY) and how they conducted grand jury proceedings. The team strongly contended that DANY was in violation of the Presidential immunity doctrine.

The legal team’s filing urged that ‘The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that these types of violations threaten the structure of the federal government and the ability of future Presidents to carry out their important duties in the way the Framers intended.’ This statement was made to underline the perils of overstepping the norms set by the Supreme Court.

Their documents further highlighted that DANY’s skewed interpretation of the case was predominantly because they dominated the proceedings with their attempts to use state law to retroactively police the 2016 Presidential election. The counsel for President Trump cautiously avoided painting the case as detrimental to his tenure.

Given the context, the counsel for President Trump has presented their proposal to move the case to federal court to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. Despite his divergence in 2023, when he declined to move the case and dismissed claims that the salacious details of the case were linked to Trump’s presidential duties.

Judge Hellerstein dismissed the transfer request in 2023, and starkly rebuked the claim that the personal details associated with the case were connected to Trump’s official duties. Trump’s attorneys have skilfully navigated this narrative, emphasizing the reality that these events were personal in nature and not connected to his role as president.

Supporting this view, Hellerstein argued, ‘Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a president’s official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the president’s official duties.’ Such a compelling assertion affirmed the division between the president’s personal life and public duties, underscoring the baseless grounds on which the case was built.

Ultimately, the claim that the case contained ’embarrassing’ details was convincingly deconstructed. It was made evident that the case did not revolve around any of President Trump’s official duties, as the prosecution might irrationally hope to demonstrate. In observing these events, one can clearly see how the articulation of legal arguments ensures that the right reasoning prevails.

Viewing Trump’s case and its development, it’s easy to appreciate where President Trump’s legal counsel is coming from: a conviction that, from the beginning, the case was merely a ‘zombie’, reawakened time and again. But it is unsurprising that they continue to fight for justice, not just for Trump, but for the preservation of the fundamental principles that guide and protect the operation of our federal government.