We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are requesting that a federal court take over his New York criminal trial, claiming that he has been exposed to “constitutional violations” due to proceedings that they argue conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.

The attorneys noted in a filing Thursday that the “ongoing proceedings will continue to cause direct and irreparable harm to President Trump—the leading candidate in the 2024 Presidential election—and voters located far beyond Manhattan.”

“And an entirely unjust sentencing is currently scheduled to occur on September 18, 2024, which could result in President Trump’s immediate and unconstitutional incarceration and prevent him from continuing his groundbreaking campaign,” Trump’s legal team noted further, as reported by Fox News.

“Post-trial removal is necessary under these circumstances to afford President Trump an unbiased forum, free from local hostilities, where he can seek redress for these Constitutional violations,” his attorneys added in their effort to have his conviction overturned.

In May, Trump was convicted on 34 counts of first-degree falsification of business records in paying off an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, following an alleged affair. The verdict followed a six-week trial resulting from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s probe into alleged hush money payments made before the 2016 presidential election.

Critics of the trial pointed to various irregularities, arguing that Bragg essentially concocted felony campaign finance charges. However, his predecessor, as well as the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission all could not find any violations under which to charge the former president.

Trump’s attorneys wrote in their filing with U.S. District Court in Manhattan that Bragg’s office “violated the Presidential immunity doctrine in grand jury proceedings, and again at trial, by relying on evidence of President Trump’s official acts during his first term in Office.”

“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 vital duties in the way the Framers intended,” they said.

“In an opinion that became final less than 30 days ago, the Supreme Court held that President Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts, and — as particularly relevant here — that prosecutors may not use official-acts evidence in connection with a prosecution that they claim arises out of unofficial conduct,” the filing continued.

Steven Cheung, Trump’s spokesman, told Fox News Digital on Thursday: “The Manhattan DA’s Witch Hunt, which violates many provisions of the United States Constitution and is crushed by the Supreme Court’s historic decision on Presidential immunity, has to be removed to federal court and summarily dismissed.”

In July 2023, a federal judge rejected a previous attempt by Trump to move the case away from a New York state court, ruling, “Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President’s official acts.” The judge also ruled that it “does not reflect in any way the color of the President’s official duties.”

However, that was well before the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling and before Bragg’s team utilized some witnesses and evidence from Trump’s time in office to convict him.

Earlier this week, Bragg filed a motion indicating that he would not oppose a request from Trump’s attorneys to delay his sentencing in the case, originally set for Sept. 18.

“The People defer to the Court on the appropriate post-trial schedule that allows for adequate time to adjudicate defendant’s [presidential immunity] motion while also pronouncing sentence ‘without unreasonable delay,’” prosecutors wrote, according to the Washington Examiner.

“The Supreme Court’s recent decision did not consider whether a trial court’s ruling on that distinct evidentiary question is immediately appealable, and there are strong reasons why it should not be. Nonetheless, given the defense’s newly-stated position, we defer to the Court on whether an adjournment is warranted to allow for orderly appellate litigation of that question, or to reduce the risk of a disruptive stay from an appellate court pending consideration of that question,” the filing — the second in as many months from Bragg in not opposing a sentencing delay — added.

The post Trump Seeks To Shift Bragg Case To Federal Court Ahead Of Sentencing appeared first on Conservative Brief.