A New York judge has dealt a blow to President-elect Donald Trump by rejecting his legal team's bid to dismiss felony convictions linked to hush money payments.

The decision highlights one of the last remaining legal challenges for Trump, whose argument of presidential immunity was dismissed by Juan Merchan as not applicable to the case, as the Washington Examiner reports.

In the recent ruling, the judge addressed Trump's attempt to overturn his conviction, deciding against his team's assertion of presidential immunity.

Trump's lawyers suggested that the Supreme Court's ruling on immunity for presidents should exempt Trump from further legal proceedings related to his hush money conviction.

Trump's Immunity Argument Dismissed

Merchan stated that the evidence against Trump used in the case was associated with unofficial actions, thereby falling outside the boundaries set by Supreme Court-declared immunity principles.

Trump's conviction, handed down in May, involves falsifying business records to conceal a payment meant to silence allegations from an adult entertainer. This conviction marked a historic moment, with Trump becoming the first current or former U.S. president found guilty of a felony.

The judgment comes amid claims from Trump that the case is politically motivated. His spokesperson, Steven Cheung, criticized the decision, calling it a violation of the Supreme Court’s stance on immunity.

Supreme Court Ruling's Impact Questioned

Following the conviction in May, the original sentencing, set for July, was postponed owing to the Supreme Court’s ruling concerning presidential immunity. This ruling prompted additional deliberations on Trump's legal defense strategy, particularly focusing on immunity exceptions.

Monday's decision by Judge Merchan represents a significant impediment to Trump's legal avenues. The judge's written opinion mentioned that, even if the contested evidence were considered part and parcel of official actions, the introduction of such evidence would be deemed "harmless error" in light of what he said was substantial proof of guilt.

In November, Merchan chose to delay sentencing indefinitely, permitting further discussions regarding the potential dismissal of the case. Trump's defense team also asserts the case should be dismissed due to his recent electoral victory, though the judge has not decided on this claim yet.

Judge's Detailing Of Harmless Error

In detailing his rationale, Merchan emphasized that any mistakes related to the introduction of evidence do not alter the overwhelming evidence against Trump. Merchan's comments on the matter underscored the legal reasoning behind his decision to deny the dismissal.

Trump's spokesperson, Cheung, painted the legal proceedings as unjust, suggesting the case had no legal basis. He insisted that the Constitution mandates its dismissal, emphasizing the need for Trump to continue the presidential transition unobstructed.

Cheung's remarks also highlighted dissatisfaction with the continuation of legal processes against Trump. He argued that ending such legal actions would facilitate national unity and allow Trump to focus on his presidential duties.

Legal Battle Continues For Trump

With the rejection of Trump's immunity-based arguments, the legal battle surrounding his conviction persists. His case continues to draw attention due to its historical implications and the high-profile nature of the defendant.

Despite the setback, Trump's legal team remains resolute in arguing against the conviction. They maintain that Trump's recent electoral win is grounds for the case's dismissal, a point Judge Merchan has yet to address.

The hush money case has emerged as a pivotal legal matter, intersecting with political currents influencing Trump's transition into another term. As this situation unfolds, it remains a focal point of political and legal discourse.

As it stands, Trump's legal challenges remain unresolved, leaving uncertainty about the ultimate resolution of this significant case.

The ramifications of this legal process are likely to influence both his presidency and broader legal precedents in the United States.