President-elect Donald Trump’s legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the Manhattan business records case, citing comments made by U.S. Senator John Fetterman as evidence of the case’s lack of merit. The filing also argues that the criminal proceedings hinder Trump’s transition process and presidential immunity under the Presidential Transition Act.

Trump’s attorneys support Fetterman’s sentiments and claim that the case lacks credibility, is politically motivated, and hinders the President-elect’s ability to transition smoothly into office, Breitbart reported.

Judge Juan Merchan now reviews the filing to determine the next steps in the legal proceedings.

Trump’s attorneys, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, submitted a 23-page filing on Thursday that became public on Friday, supporting a motion to dismiss the case and vacate the verdict. Their argument centers around comments made by Senator Fetterman on Truth Social, where he referred to the case as "bullshit." Fetterman, a prominent Democrat, criticized both the Trump hush money case and Hunter Biden’s legal troubles, advocating for pardons in both matters and denouncing the political weaponization of the judiciary.

Fetterman’s post, which garnered widespread attention, argued that criminal cases involving both Trump and Hunter Biden were emblematic of a deeper problem within the legal system. He stated, "Weaponizing the judiciary for blatant, partisan gain diminishes the collective faith in our institutions and sows further division." Fetterman’s criticism of the case adds to the growing public debate about political interference in the legal process.

Trump’s Legal Team Leverages Fetterman’s Criticism in Court

Trump’s legal team seized on these remarks, arguing that Fetterman’s characterization of the behavior of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office was "apt." The filing went further, condemning Bragg’s office for what it described as "troubling and irresponsible" analogies in legal briefs. One particular analogy compared Trump to a deceased defendant, which Trump’s attorneys argue reveals the office’s politically charged motivations rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

The filing also cites the Presidential Transition Act, which Trump’s legal team claims justifies the immediate dismissal of the case. They assert that the Act prioritizes protecting a President-elect’s transition activities over ongoing criminal proceedings. The attorneys emphasize that continuing the case would severely disrupt Trump’s ability to prepare for his presidential duties.

Blanche and Bove further argue that the legal proceedings are at odds with the Presidential Transition Act’s intent to safeguard transition activities as vital to the incoming President’s constitutional duties. The filing also points out that Bragg’s office failed to address the text of the Act in its opposition to Trump’s motion to dismiss.

Presidential Transition Act Highlights Legal Team’s Argument

The Presidential Transition Act emphasizes presidential immunity, which Trump’s attorneys cite to support their position. They argue that the Act mandates an uninterrupted transition process to ensure a smooth handover of power, free from interference by criminal proceedings. Trump’s attorneys claim that the ongoing case directly disrupts this essential constitutional function.

Judge Merchan will ultimately decide whether to dismiss the case or allow it to proceed. The motion to dismiss urges the court to vacate the verdict, highlighting concerns about political motivations in the legal system and emphasizing the need for the President-elect to focus on the transition without legal distractions.

The Growing Debate Over Legal Politics and Presidential Immunity

As the case moves through the courts, the spotlight on political influence in the legal process remains a central issue. Trump’s legal team has framed the ongoing case as part of a broader trend of political interference in the judicial system, an argument echoed by various figures within the Republican Party.

Trump’s attorneys have expressed concern that continuing with the case will not only cause unnecessary distractions for the President-elect but could also contribute to further divisions within the country. The case, which revolves around allegations of falsifying business records in connection to hush money payments, has sparked intense debate about the role of the judiciary in political matters.

The case's controversy also prompts questions about how courts should handle legal matters involving sitting Presidents or President-elects. Legal experts remain divided over the case's merits and its impact on the President’s ability to carry out transition activities while facing legal challenges.

Judicial Independence at the Heart of Legal Debate

The legal team’s motion to dismiss highlights the growing tension between the judiciary and political figures, especially with the 2024 election approaching. The courts have yet to address these concerns, but Trump’s attorneys firmly believe the case stems from partisan politics rather than legitimate legal claims.

As Judge Merchan reviews the motion to dismiss, all eyes will be on the next steps in a case that has already become a flashpoint for political discourse in the U.S. The decision could have significant ramifications not only for Trump but also for the broader conversation about the intersection of law and politics.

Case Continues to Spark Political and Legal Divisions

Alvin Bragg, who leads the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, has not yet commented on the motion to dismiss, but the filing is expected to play a key role in the ongoing legal proceedings. Trump’s legal team hopes the court will dismiss the case, vacate the verdict, and allow the President-elect to focus on his transition and prepare for his upcoming presidency.