Former President Donald Trump's legal team has argued in a letter to Judge Juan Merchan for the opportunity to respond in detail to the claims put forth by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office regarding presidential immunity.

This development is part of Trump's ongoing efforts to overturn his conviction on 34 felony counts in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, as the Washington Examiner reports.

Trump's attorneys made this request in a letter dated Thursday, which became public the following Tuesday. This comes after Bragg’s office submitted an opposition filing on Wednesday, accusing Trump's legal team of misrepresenting legal and factual issues.

Legal Back-and-Forth Over Immunity Claims

The back-and-forth stems from Trump’s July 11 motion, which seeks to dismiss a jury’s guilty verdict. This request was influenced by a Supreme Court decision that tackles the scope of presidential immunity.

Trump’s lawyers argue that the opposition failed to address crucial points related to presidential immunity.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche emphasized the need for a comprehensive 30-page reply to address perceived misrepresentations. His argument underscores the importance of ensuring that the Court fully grasps the Supreme Court immunity precedent, especially in light of what Blanche describes as “misguided and inaccurate assertions."

Prosecutors Challenge Defense's Timing and Arguments

Bragg’s office asserted that Trump's previous motion was untimely, a claim that Trump's defense flatly rejects. The prosecution argued that Trump's legal team had introduced immunity arguments before the trial, without the inclusion of certain evidence, thus failing to preserve their right to bring new claims.

Trump’s team countered this by claiming they had properly objected to the admission of certain evidence during the trial. According to Blanche, Judge Merchan had acknowledged the lawyers' objections, stating phrases such as “The objection is noted” during the court proceedings.

Presidential Duties and Constitutional Authority Debated

At the heart of the disagreement is whether Trump’s actions related to a Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigation into hush money payments fell within the purview of his presidential duties.

Bragg's office contends that these actions were not protected by the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which mandates that the president ensure the laws are faithfully executed.

According to the defense team, this argument overlooks the constitutional authority vested in the president by the Take Care Clause. The lawyers argue that discussing investigations is part of the president’s duties and, therefore, falls within the scope of presidential immunity.

Testimony and Evidence Under Scrutiny

During the trial, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen testified about his belief that then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions would “take care of” the FEC investigation, a notion Bragg’s office described as an “empty promise.” Trump’s defense disputes this characterization, arguing that oversight of the FEC is within the executive branch’s powers, and Trump had the supervisory authority in this matter.

Bragg’s office, however, insists that Cohen’s testimony did not demonstrate that Trump's actions were part of official presidential duties. They maintain that even if Trump had discussed the investigation, it did not fall within the constitutionally protected actions of a president.

Pending Ruling on Conviction Overturn

The legal wrangling has resulted in significant delays in the case. Sentencing, which was initially set for July 11, has been postponed. Judge Merchan is expected to rule on Trump’s motion to overturn his conviction by Sept. 6, with a potential sentencing hearing set for Sept. 18.

The outcome of this legal battle holds significant implications for Trump. Depending on Judge Merchan’s ruling, Trump could face a range of penalties, including jail time, fines, probation, or house arrest.

Conclusion

In summary, the legal battle between Trump’s attorneys and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office centers around issues of presidential immunity, the timing of motions, and the scope of the president’s official duties. As tensions escalate, Judge Merchan's decision on September 6 will be pivotal in determining the former president's future.

By Sept. 6, Judge Merchan will rule on Trump’s motion, which could have extensive consequences for Trump's legal standing and potential penalties ranging from jail time to probation or house arrest.

In conclusion, Trump’s legal team continues to dispute the positions and timing asserted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, particularly concerning presidential immunity and its constitutional implications. As the court proceedings progress, Judge Merchan's upcoming decisions will be crucial in determining the outcome of this high-profile case, with significant implications for both legal interpretations of presidential immunity and Trump’s immediate future.