Donald Trump’s legal battle took a significant turn on Monday as a judge rejected his attempt to dismiss his hush-money conviction. Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan’s 41-page ruling directly counters Trump’s legal team’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity should protect him. This decision, coming just weeks before his projected return to office in January 2025, adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing saga. The crux of Trump’s defense rested on the claim that evidence used in his trial—including his presidential financial disclosure forms, testimony from White House aides, and social media posts—was improperly linked to his official presidential duties. Judge Merchan decisively refuted this, stating that the evidence pertained to “wholly unofficial conduct,” specifically the falsification of business records to conceal the hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Even if some evidence were linked to his official duties, the judge ruled, its inclusion wouldn’t warrant dismissal due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, vehemently denounced the decision, calling it a “lawless” attack on Trump’s political career. He asserted it directly violated the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity and longstanding legal precedent. The case stems from a $130,000 payment made by Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, to Daniels before the 2016 election to prevent her from revealing a purported decade-old sexual encounter with Trump, an encounter Trump denies. In May 2023, a jury found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to this payment. Trump maintains his innocence, labeling the case as a politically motivated attack designed to sabotage his 2024 presidential bid. This conviction marks a historic moment, making Trump the first former US president and only the second president (former or sitting) ever to be criminally convicted. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity clarified that ex-presidents are immune only for actions performed during their official duties, a distinction Judge Merchan emphasized. He pointed out that Trump’s social media posts, for example, were personal in nature, not official presidential acts. The judge also cited a prior federal court ruling that classified the hush money payment as a private matter. Despite the latest ruling, Trump’s legal team continues its fight. They’ve filed a motion arguing that a sitting president shouldn’t face criminal conviction, a motion yet to be ruled upon by Merchan. The timing of any sentencing remains uncertain. Prosecutors have proposed options to preserve the conviction, such as freezing the case until Trump leaves office or altering the sentence to avoid jail time. Trump’s legal battles extend far beyond this case. He faces multiple other criminal cases, including federal charges concerning his attempt to overturn the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents, as well as a state case in Georgia related to election interference. As Trump prepares for a potential second term, these legal challenges cast a long shadow, particularly given he is the first former president to be convicted of a felony, and the first criminal ever to run and win back the presidency. The ongoing legal battles are expected to continue well into his second term, potentially dragging on for years. Appeals are anticipated, further prolonging the resolution. The ramifications of this case extend far beyond Trump’s own fate. The legal precedents set, and the political discourse generated, will undoubtedly shape future discussions around presidential accountability and the limits of executive power. The ongoing legal saga will continue to dominate headlines and remain a topic of national conversation for years to come. This situation raises critical questions about the balance between a president’s power and the rule of law, questions that will continue to be debated and analyzed in the coming years.