Trump Faces New Legal Challenge. The former president faces his 54th criminal charge, a situation no U.S. president has ever encountered before. On top of that, seven prosecutors have stepped down to protest recent decisions about case handling.
The legal drama unfolds alongside sweeping changes in federal agencies. Many workers got just 30 minutes to clear their desks. These developments point to rising tensions within the justice system as Manhattan Court continues its investigation into Trump’s actions during his presidency.
Manhattan DA Files Fresh Charges Against Trump
“The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump” — Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office made history by convicting former President Donald Trump on all [34 felony counts of falsifying business records](https://apnews.com/projects/trump-investigations-civil-criminal-tracker/). The case revealed a complex scheme to hide damaging information before the 2016 presidential election.
What are the new allegations?
Evidence showed how Trump arranged a “catch and kill” scheme through several payments and covered them up with false business entries for months. The money trail showed payments of USD 130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels and USD 150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal. The Trump Organization then paid back these amounts by creating fake legal expense records.
The case had 34 different falsified documents that included:
- 11 invoices from Michael Cohen
- 9 general ledger entries for Donald J. Trump
- 9 checks from Donald J. Trump
- 3 general ledger entries for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust
- 2 checks from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust
How does this case differ from previous ones?
This case stands out because it’s the first time a former U.S. president has faced a criminal conviction. A New York Times analysis of about 30 similar cases from Bragg and his predecessor showed that Manhattan DA’s approach was unusual.
The prosecution focused on falsifying business records in the first degree. This felony needs proof that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or aid or conceal the commission thereof”. Trump’s actions were proven to be attempts at unlawfully influencing the 2016 presidential election.
Judge Juan Merchan indicated Trump would likely get an unconditional discharge with no jail or probation time. Legal challenges and appeals delayed the sentencing, which was originally set for July.
Trump Legal Team Launches Aggressive Defense Strategy
Trump’s defense team launched multiple aggressive legal challenges against the Manhattan criminal case. Lead attorney Todd Blanche filed a motion asking the Appellate Division to dismiss the case. He argued that the proceedings were “unlawful, unconstitutional, and in excess” of the trial judge’s jurisdiction.
Defense attorneys challenge jurisdiction
The legal team aims to get wholesale dismissal through multiple appeals. They filed three separate legal challenges in three consecutive days to delay the trial. Their main argument centers on Article 78 of New York law. This law allows litigants to ask for relief from allegedly unlawful state or local government action.
Attorney Emil Bove raised several key challenges:
- Questioning the constitutionality of Judge Merchan’s gag order
- Contesting the rejection of presidential immunity defense
- Challenging the judge’s authority to restrict motion filings
The defense team faced setbacks when Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer denied their third attempt to pause the trial. The lawyers’ strategy shows they want to “fight for every scrap of evidence” and “push for every possible delay”.
Trump denounces charges as politically motivated
The former president’s campaign has managed to keep that the charges represent “nothing more than the latest corrupt chapter” in what they see as a political pursuit. Trump’s legal team picked up on this in their court strategy. Attorney Bove suggested that Judge Merchan has been “operating under an appearance of impropriety”.
The defense strategy mirrors Trump’s political messaging. His lawyers paint the case as an unjust assault on the former president’s character. This approach creates unique challenges in the courtroom. Trump’s attorneys must balance their client’s aggressive stance while retaining credibility before the judge.
David Schoen, a former Trump lawyer, highlighted the complexity. He said that “nobody knows which case is going to go first, and balancing the political and legal optics of every decision made is difficult”. The defense team must review their client’s social media posts carefully. They need to ensure the posts don’t violate gag orders or hurt their legal strategy.
Judge Issues Unprecedented Ruling on Evidence
“The Court should preclude defendant from presenting argument and introducing evidence of purported selective prosecution at trial because … any selective prosecution argument at trial would serve no purpose other than to advance an improper jury nullification defense.” — Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, Prosecution team in Trump’s New York criminal case
Justice Juan Merchan made history with his ruling on presidential immunity claims in the Manhattan criminal case. His 41-page decision rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the conviction. This altered the map of legal precedents for former presidents.
Key documents unsealed in courtroom
The court released a large set of vital documents that included multiple decisions and orders from February 2024 through January 2025. Justice Merchan’s ruling tackled everything in the case. We focused on whether presidential immunity should have stopped jurors from seeing specific evidence during the spring trial.
Justice Merchan looked at the Supreme Court’s earlier decision on presidential immunity for official acts. He found that the trial evidence related “entirely to unofficial conduct”. His analysis showed that even when evidence touched on official acts, using these materials to prove personal business record falsification did not threaten executive branch authority.
The unsealed documents revealed a detailed timeline. Justice Merchan noted that Trump’s legal team didn’t object during the trial to testimony they later claimed was wrongly admitted. The court concluded that any possible errors about the challenged evidence were “harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt”.
This case stands as the first criminal prosecution in U.S. history of a former president for actions during his presidency. The court acknowledged that presidents keep their immunity from civil damages liability. The strong procedural safeguards in federal criminal prosecutions substantially reduce concerns about post-presidency litigation.
The ruling covered several disputed pieces of evidence, including:
- Testimony from White House aides Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout
- Presidential financial disclosure forms
- Social media posts made during Trump’s presidency
Justice Merchan stressed that communications that helped the alleged cover-up were clearly unofficial acts. He asked whether “a President’s in-office conduct to conceal payments to an adult film actress to keep information from the public eye relating to an encounter that occurred prior to his Presidency” could be official or unofficial. He ended up determining these actions fell outside official presidential duties.
DOJ Prosecutors Face Internal Turmoil
The Department of Justice faces an unprecedented crisis as seven senior prosecutors step down amid growing tensions over case dismissal directives. The agency’s stability hangs in balance after orders surfaced to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
Seven attorneys resign in protest
Multiple prosecutors triggered a mass exodus by refusing to comply with acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove’s directives. The list of resignations includes:
- Three deputy chiefs from the Public Integrity Section: Rob Heberle, Jenn Clarke, and Marco Palmieri
- Kevin Driscoll, acting head of the Criminal Division
- John Keller, acting head of the Public Integrity Section
- Two additional senior prosecutors
Acting US Attorney steps down
Danielle Sassoon, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, submitted her resignation after refusing to dismiss the Adams case. Her resignation letter revealed details of a January 31 meeting where Adams’ attorneys suggested “what amounted to a quid pro quo”. Bove accepted her resignation and cited her “choice to continue pursuing a politically motivated prosecution”.
Ethics concerns emerge within department
Serious ethical debates erupted within the Justice Department after these resignations. Lead prosecutor Hagan Scotten became the seventh official to resign and stressed that “no system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives”.
Sixteen attorneys signed a letter urging the American Bar Association to “take a clear stand against the lawless actions of the Trump administration”. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s memo now threatens discipline or termination for attorneys who “decline to sign a brief or appear in court” due to personal political views.
This crisis mirrors the historic “Saturday Night Massacre” of 1973, when senior Justice Department officials resigned rather than follow President Richard Nixon’s order to fire the special counsel investigating Watergate. The current situation raises deep concerns about the department’s independence and prosecutorial power’s potential misuse for political gain.
Breaking News Reveals New Witness Testimony
New details surface as the core team of witnesses give damaging testimony against former President Trump in the Manhattan criminal trial. Hope Hicks, former White House communications director, gave emotional testimony about Trump’s role in suppressing damaging stories before the 2016 election.
Former aide gives significant evidence
Hope Hicks appeared nervous and tearful as she detailed Trump’s direct involvement in managing potentially damaging news stories. She revealed under oath that Trump was “very involved” in the campaign’s press strategy. “Mr. Trump was responsible. He knew what he wanted to say and how he wanted to say it”.
She ended up disclosing vital conversations about the payment arrangements and testified that Trump worried about his wife’s reaction to the stories. She also described Trump’s response to the Wall Street Journal’s revelation about the USD 130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels.
The testimony revealed several key points:
- Trump’s direct involvement in suppressing stories before the 2016 election
- Detailed accounts of conversations about payment arrangements
- Documentation of Trump’s personal reactions to news stories
- Evidence of communication patterns with Michael Cohen
Document trail surfaces unexpectedly
The prosecution’s case grew stronger when Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, provided extensive documentation that supported the allegations. Cohen testified that “everything required Mr. Trump’s sign-off,” which established a clear chain of authority. Prosecutors now have text messages, photos, and detailed notes that document Trump’s involvement in the payment schemes.
The evidence trail has previously undisclosed security footage from Mar-a-Lago that shows the movement of boxes after prosecutors issued subpoenas. Phone records show calls between Trump and his valet that matched these movements.
Cohen’s testimony about Trump’s deep involvement in the payment scheme strengthened the prosecution’s case. “What I was doing, I was doing at the direction of and benefit of Mr. Trump,” Cohen stated under oath. The document trail showed that Trump promised to reimburse Cohen through monthly installments structured as legal services.
Conclusion
The latest legal developments mark a turning point in American judicial history. Trump faces conviction on 34 felony counts. Former White House officials’ damaging testimony strengthens the prosecution’s case by a lot. Judge Merchan made a groundbreaking ruling that rejected presidential immunity claims. The ruling established that actions to conceal payments do not fall under official presidential duties.
Trump’s legal team faces repeated setbacks in court while mounting challenges through multiple appeals. The Department of Justice shows internal turmoil after seven senior prosecutors resigned over case handling decisions.
Hope Hicks and Michael Cohen’s evidence proves especially damaging to Trump’s defense. Their testimony shows Trump’s direct involvement in payment schemes through extensive documentation, text messages, and security footage. The evidence creates a compelling story about business record falsification.
This legal battle tests more than individual criminal charges. The case challenges fundamental principles of presidential accountability and the justice system’s independence. Future interpretations of executive privilege will without doubt change based on this outcome. The case will set new standards to prosecute former presidents.
Related News from Albania and the Region:
- Ilir Meta – Reports Death Threats Inside Prison Cell.
- Today’s Politics – Parliamentary debates and key statements from political leaders.
- Librazhdi Press – The latest news from the city of Librazhd and surrounding areas.