hushmoney Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

This BigLaw firm will represent Trump in appeal of hush-money conviction

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 30 Jan 2025 20:22:55 +0000

Law Firms

This BigLaw firm will represent Trump in appeal of hush-money conviction

January 30, 2025, 12:47 pm CST

President Donald Trump awaits the start of his criminal trial at Manhattan criminal court in New York on May 6, 2024. (Photo by Peter Foley via the Associated Press)

Sullivan & Cromwell will represent President Donald Trump in his appeal of his conviction and sentence for falsifying business records to hide a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election.

The lead lawyer on Trump’s election-interference case is Sullivan & Cromwell co-chair Robert Giuffra Jr., report Reuters, Law.com, the New York Times, Law360, Politico and Above the Law.

According to the New York Times, the law firm’s handling of the appeal “underscores how New York’s legal power players have warmed to the president. Mr. Trump was spurned by lawyers from major firms when he left office four years ago, but his second victory has brought about a sea change.”

Trump was convicted in May 2024 after the Manhattan district attorney’s office in New York argued that he falsified records to cover up a crime—namely, violation of a New York law that bars using illegal means to promote a candidate for political office. The concealment made the crime a felony.

Earlier this month, Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, which meant that there would be no legal penalty.

Trump’s trial lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove of Blanche Law, have been nominated to top positions in the U.S. Department of Justice. Blanche had resigned from Cadwalader to represent Trump.

Other members of Trump’s team are Sullivan & Cromwell partners James McDonald, Morgan Ratner, Jeffrey Wall and Matthew Schwartz. All the lawyers on the team have served as clerks for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post This BigLaw firm will represent Trump in appeal of hush-money conviction appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

SCOTUS denies Trump bid to stop hush-money sentencing

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 10 Jan 2025 07:58:26 +0000

U.S. President Donald Trump (L) introduces 7th U.S. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden at the White House September 26, 2020 in Washington, DC (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Donald Trump’s eleventh-hour request to halt Friday’s sentencing hearing in the president-elect’s criminal hush-money case out of New York.The 5-4 ruling against the 45th and future-47th president was less than one page.

“The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons,” the order reads. “First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing.”

Eschewing a typical opinion, the terse ruling goes on to note that Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh would have granted the application.

In sum, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the justices appointed by Democratic Party presidents.

Trump on Wednesday filed an application asking the justices to step in and stop Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan from formally sentencing him in the case where Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts for payments made to keep his alleged affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels quiet.

In his 51-page application seeking emergency intervention, Trump claimed that Merchan was wrong in refusing to vacate his convictions and dismiss the case against him after he won the 2024 presidential election.

Trump’s controversial argument asserts the novel theory that the immunity from prosecution granted to a sitting president via last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling extends into the transition period following an election.

“President Trump noted that, upon his inauguration as the 47th President of the United States on January 20, 2025, he will be completely immune from all criminal process, state or federal,” Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, wrote in the filing. “President Trump also stated that the doctrine of sitting-President immunity shields him from criminal process during the brief but crucial period of Presidential transition, while he engages in the extraordinarily demanding task of preparing to assume the Executive power of the United States.”

Merchan earlier this week rejected Trump’s theory of president-elect immunity. The state’s intermediate appellate court and highest court both followed suit, refusing to halt Trump’s sentencing hearing.

Prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office pushed back hard on Trump’s immunity claim, imploring the court not to intervene on Trump’s behalf Thursday morning.

The filing from the DA’s office asserted that the “extraordinary” relief Trump is requesting has never before been sought and would set a dangerous precedent for the court by creating a new form of “President-elect immunity” from whole cloth.

“[D]efendant makes the unprecedented claim that the temporary presidential immunity he will possess in the future fully immunizes him now, weeks before he even takes the oath of office, from all state-court criminal process,” the filing stated. “This extraordinary immunity claim is unsupported by any decision from any court. It is axiomatic that there is only one President at a time. Non-employees of the government do not exercise any official function that would be impaired by the conclusion of a criminal case against a private citizen for private conduct. And as this Court has repeatedly recognized, presidential immunity is strictly limited to the time of the President’s term in office.”

Bragg further argued that recognizing Trump’s immunity claim would conflict with the high court’s own precedent as set forth in last year’s landmark case granting a president absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts.

“No judicial decision or guidance from the Department of Justice has ever recognized that the unique temporary immunity of the sitting President extends to the President-elect,” the filing stated. “Such an extension would conflict with this Court’s holdings that Article II vests the entirety of the executive power in the incumbent President alone and that only the incumbent is charged with performance of the executive duty under the Constitution.”

If the justices are not eager to further expand presidential prosecutorial immunity, Trump also claimed that his filing of the appeal should have triggered an immediate and automatic stay of trial court proceedings.

“The commencement of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising claims of Presidential immunity causes an automatic stay of proceedings in the trial court under Trump v. United States and related case law,” his attorneys wrote. “This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit.”

The DA’s office argued that the federal court did not have the legal authority to intervene in state criminal court proceedings at such an early stage in the process.

“As a threshold matter, this Court lacks jurisdiction over a state court’s management of an ongoing criminal trial when defendant has not exhausted his state-law remedies and there has been no ‘[f]inal judgment[ ] or decree[ ] rendered by’ the New York Court of Appeals, or even the state trial court,” the filing states.

Despite the Supreme Court refusing his petition, Trump is is unlikely to substantially affected. Merchan earlier this week already signaled that he will let the president-elect off the hook with no meaningful legal consequences, even allowing Trump to appear remotely due to the rigors of the presidential transition period.

“While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation,” the judge wrote.

Source link

The post SCOTUS denies Trump bid to stop hush-money sentencing appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

NY.’s highest court won’t stop Trump’s hush-money sentencing

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 09 Jan 2025 15:42:52 +0000

President-elect Donald Trump on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024 (NBC News/YouTube).

New York’s highest court has rejected Donald Trump’s latest bid to halt Friday’s sentencing hearing in the criminal hush-money case that saw him convicted on 34 felony charges.

The New York Court of Appeals’ denial of the request is the latest in a string of legal losses for the president-elect this week as he continues his efforts to have the case dismissed and his conviction vacated.

In a 29-page emergency application filed Wednesday, Trump asked the court to issue an “immediate stay” of the criminal proceedings as he sought reversal of Acting Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s “erroneous rulings wrongly denying President Trump’s claims of Presidential immunity.”

Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche wrote that he was challenging Merchan’s Dec. 16 order rejecting Trump’s claim of “presidential immunity based on evidentiary use of official acts,” as well as Merchan’s Jan. 3 order denying Trump’s motion to dismiss based on his “claim of sitting-presidential immunity as extended into the transitional period while Trump is President-elect.”

The attorney further claimed that filing the motion with the appeals court should trigger an immediate and automatic stay of proceedings at the trial court, while also using the opportunity to malign Merchan, prosecutors, and Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen for their roles Trump’s convictions.

“As discussed herein, the commencement of appellate proceedings seeking interlocutory review of these claims of Presidential immunity immediately causes an automatic stay of proceedings in the Supreme Court under Trump v. United States and related case law,” the filing states. “This appellate proceeding should result in a dismissal of this politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit.”

In what appears to be a novel argument for the president-elect, Trump also asserted that Merchan’s decision to schedule the sentencing hearing for Jan. 10, 2025, infringed on Trump’s constitutional rights.

“[The] Supreme Court’s unconstitutional decision to set sentencing for January 10, 2025, mere days before President Trump’s inauguration to serve a second term as President of the United States, threatens irreparable harm and deprivation of President Trump’s constitutional rights,” Blanche wrote in the filing.

Blanche made the same argument during Tuesday’s oral arguments before New York First Department Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer, who pointed out that Merchan had repeatedly delayed Trump’s sentencing hearing at Trump’s own request. Gesmer quickly rejected Trump’s request to stay the proceedings.

Trump also filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to have the criminal proceedings delayed indefinitely. Prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office were ordered to respond to Trump’s filing by 10 a.m. on Thursday.

Source link

The post NY.’s highest court won’t stop Trump’s hush-money sentencing appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Judge rejects Trump bid to delay hush-money sentencing

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:36:48 +0000

Left: Donald Trump speaks after voting in the Florida primary election in Palm Beach, Fla., Tuesday, March 19, 2024 (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee). Right: New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan poses for a picture in his chambers in New York, Thursday, March 14, 2024 (AP Photo/Seth Wenig).

The judge presiding over Donald Trump‘s criminal hush-money case has denied a motion from the president-elect to postpone Friday’s sentencing hearing.

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan issued the order late on Monday, calling Trump’s motion “for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past.”

Early Monday, Trump had asked Merchan to halt the Jan. 10 sentencing while he appeals the court’s decision to uphold his conviction on 34 felony charges for falsifying business records.

Trump also used the opportunity to malign Merchan and prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for bringing the charges against him in the first place while arguing that the appeal should trigger an immediate halt of the case at the trial level.

“As discussed herein, the commencement of appellate proceedings — which should result in a dismissal of this politically-motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit — seeking interlocutory review of these claims of Presidential immunity immediately results in an automatic stay of proceedings in this Court,” the document states. “Due to the fact that further criminal proceedings are automatically stayed by operation of federal constitutional law, the Court will lack authority to proceed with sentencing, must therefore immediately vacate the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, and suspend all proceedings in the case until the conclusion of President Trump’s appeal on Presidential immunity.”

Trump requested that Merchan rule on his request to stay the proceedings within a few hours, asking the court to notify the parties of his decision by 2 p.m. on Monday.

Hours after filing the stay, Trump’s attorneys filed a notice of appeal, arguing that Merchan’s ruling that immunity does not extend to the president-elect was erroneous and should be reversed.

“Justice Merchan’s erroneous decisions threaten the institution of the Presidency and run squarely against established precedent disallowing any criminal process against a President-Elect, as well as prohibiting the use of evidence of a President’s official acts against him in a criminal proceeding,” the appeal stated.

The Manhattan DA’s Office, for their part, opposed Trump’s motion to delay sentencing, arguing in a motion Monday afternoon that “Contrary to defendant’s claim, the mere fact that he has invoked presidential immunity in an interlocutory appeal does not entitle him to an automatic stay of further trial proceedings pending appeal.”

Prosecutors also informed Merchan of their belief that Trump was unlikely to win his appeal.

Merchan in his denial appeared to be unmoved by Trump’s arguments.

“This Court finds that the authorities relied upon in the motion by the Defendant are for the most part, factually distinguishable from the actual record or legally inapplicable,” Merchan wrote.

Merchan on Friday issued an 18-page order refusing to vacate the case against Trump but signaled that the former and soon-to-be president is not likely not face any real legal consequences and granted Trump’s request to appear virtually for the hearing.

The judge went on to muse that the “most viable solution to ensure finality” and allow Trump to exhaust his appellate rights is by sentencing him to “unconditional discharge.” This form of sentence equates to no further consequences and is typically used when a judge determines there is no practical import to imposing any legal disability on a convicted criminal defendant.

Law&Crime’s Jerry Lambe contributed to this report.

Source link

The post Judge rejects Trump bid to delay hush-money sentencing appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump blasts Bragg for death analogy used in hush-money case

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 14 Dec 2024 09:20:23 +0000

Left to right: Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks on Tuesday April 2, 2024, at a rally in Green Bay, Wis. (AP Photo/Mike Roemer), Judge Juan Merchan poses for a picture in his chambers in New York, Thursday, March 14, 2024 (AP Photo/Seth Wenig), FILE — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg gestures while speaking during a news conference Feb. 22, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II).

Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump on Friday again asked the judge overseeing his New York City-based hush-money case to dismiss the indictment and vacate the jury’s guilty verdicts.

Earlier this week, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed the state’s response to Trump’s motion to dismiss.

In the 82-page filing, the Democratic Party prosecutor suggested New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan could use the “abatement-by-death” process to give the case some finality.

In the 23-page reply, a section header refers to the district attorney’s suggestion as a “Dark Dream Scenario” that is “Not An Option.”

Trump’s attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove rubbished the idea as an effort to “fabricate” an “unconstitutional” adventure into a “Wonderland” and “make new law contrary to binding precedent.”

In the state’s brief, Bragg admits that New York does not use the form of abatement that his office is proposing – and directs the court’s attention to the “Alabama rule.” The district attorney describes the rule as: “when a defendant dies after he is found guilty, but before the conviction becomes final through the appellate process, the court places in the record of the case a notation to the effect that the conviction removed the presumption of innocence but was neither affirmed nor reversed on appeal because the defendant died.”

The state’s brief then explains how Merchan might apply the Alabama rule to the present case involving the 45th and 47th president:

In this way, the Alabama rule abates the criminal proceedings without vacating the underlying conviction or dismissing the indictment. As applied here, this Court could similarly terminate the criminal proceeding by placing a notation in the record that the jury verdict removed the presumption of innocence; that defendant was never sentenced; and that his conviction was neither affirmed nor reversed on appeal because of presidential immunity.

It makes sense to borrow from the manner in which courts address abatement because many of defendant’s arguments here parallel the arguments made in favor of dismissal and vacatur upon a defendant’s death.

Those notions, Trump’s reply argues, amount to something not entirely unlike appalling – and, in any event, are precluded by law.

“As a further illustration of DA Bragg’s desperation to avoid legally mandated dismissal, [Bragg’s office] proposes that the Court pretend as if one of the assassination attempts against President Trump had been successful,” the latest motion reads. “[Bragg’s office] also thinks it ‘makes sense’ for Your Honor to pretend that the Court is in Alabama. These abatement arguments are absurd.”

While headline-generating, the abatement-by-death suggestion is one of many arrows in the district attorney’s quiver.

Late last month, Bragg’s office made it clear prosecutors intend to push forward and ask for Trump to be sentenced in connection with his 34 felony convictions on charges of falsifying business documents — after he finishes his second term as president in January 2029.

That is still Bragg’s preferred method here – effectively keeping the case in a state of formal legal limbo for the next four years. But, this week, Bragg theorized that Trump could still be formally sentenced immediately – while keeping any resulting consequences at bay.

“If defendant is sentenced before his inauguration, such a stay would merely place appellate proceedings in abeyance,” the DA’s motion reads. “If defendant takes future steps to stay his sentencing and succeeds in doing so, such a stay would delay his sentencing until after the end of his presidential term.”

Trump wholly rejected that idea, too.

“The Zombie Case, which started in 2018 and involves decades-old false allegations, cannot ‘simply’ be ‘stayed’ until President Trump leaves Office in 2029,” the defense reply goes on. “[Bragg’s office] proposed course of action would violate not only Presidential immunity, but also due process, the Sixth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment.”

To hear the once-and-future president tell it, a recent memo by the Office of Legal Counsel relied upon by special counsel Jack Smith foreclosed against keeping a sitting president under the threat of criminal sanction – period. While the case law cited Smith – and subsequently relied upon by the defense – is necessarily federal in nature, Trump says the parallels are obvious and apply here.

The defense reply explains, at length:

President Trump would be “legally stigmatized,” in violation of the Constitution, by the proposed stay because he would be denied “any meaningful opportunity to respond to his accusers in a court of law.” The “mere pendency of an indictment” violates Presidential immunity. OLC’s conclusions are grounded in reality and compelling. [Bragg’s office] offers no persuasive reason to avoid them. Staying the proceedings during President Trump’s second term would impede the Presidency and give New York County intolerable leverage over the Executive Branch, which exists for the protection of the entire Nation…

In addition, a stay would require President Trump to lead the Country while facing the ongoing threat that this Court and [Bragg’s office] are prepared to impose imprisonment, fines, and other punishment as soon as he leaves Office. To be clear, President Trump will never deviate from the public interest in response to these thuggish tactics. However, the threat itself is unconstitutional, under the Presidential Transition Act, the Presidential immunity doctrine, and the Supremacy Clause, because it would exacerbate the stigma and distraction burdens discussed above…

Trump’s team reiterates its arguments from their earlier brief. Namely, that dismissal is required by the presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act, and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The heart of the defense brief, however, is steeped in attacks on Bragg’s character – and heavy focus is on the abatement idea.

Again, the defense filing:

[Bragg’s] brief includes a request that the Court disregard the New York Court of Appeals and fabricate unconstitutional “abatement” law, all based on an extremely troubling and irresponsible analogy between President Trump—who has survived multiple assassination attempts, and will soon be “the only person who alone composes a branch of government”—and a hypothetical dead defendant. That unhinged contention demonstrates conclusively that DA Bragg and [the DA’s office] cannot be trusted to separate their political motivations and careerist ambitions from their obligations to seek justice.

Source link

The post Trump blasts Bragg for death analogy used in hush-money case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump cites Biden pardon in bid to end hush-money case

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 04 Dec 2024 02:54:25 +0000

Left to right: Donald Trump speaks Tuesday April 2, 2024, at a rally in Green Bay, Wis. (AP Photo/Mike Roemer), FILE — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg gestures while speaking during a news conference Feb. 22, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II), FILE — Hunter Biden departs from federal court June 11, 2024, in Wilmington, Del. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum), Clarence Thomas (YouTube/Library of Congress).

Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump on Monday asked the judge overseeing his New York City-based hush-money case to dismiss the indictment and vacate the jury’s guilty verdicts.

In an 80-page filing, attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove say three distinct sources of federal law “require” the defense’s requested “result” and those legal sources “require it immediately.”

But the penultimate filing in the case actually begins with an invocation of current events: President Joe Biden’s pardon of his adult son Hunter Biden’s felony gun conviction and any would-be crimes.

“Yesterday, in issuing a 10-year pardon to Hunter Biden that covers any and all crimes whether charged or uncharged, President Biden asserted that his son was ‘selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,’ and ‘treated differently,”” the filing, docketed Tuesday, reads.

Trump’s attorneys do not only crib language from the 46th president’s perfidious bout of patrimonial clemency, they also echo the elder Biden’s words targeting the work of federal prosecutors.

“President Biden argued that ‘raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice,’” the motion goes on. “These comments amounted to an extraordinary condemnation of President Biden’s own DOJ. This is the same DOJ that coordinated and oversaw the politically-motivated, election-interference witch hunts targeting President Trump.”

The filing accuses Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, of having engaged in “precisely the type of political theater” the president rubbished when he issued his son’s pardon.

The Damocletian nature of that option is mentioned in the motion.

“With respect to Presidential immunity, it would be egregious and unlawful for this Court to hold the prospect of a 2029 sentencing over President Trump’s head while he continues his service to this Country,” the filing reads. “President Trump would be required to operate ‘under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become. the subject of inquiry’ at a future sentencing.”

Trump’s attorneys go on to say the prospect of a president working under such conditions would “seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government.”

And, so the argument goes, simply putting the sentencing of the case on a shelf in a legal freezer would violate the presidential immunity doctrine created by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.

In the filing, Trump’s attorneys tear into Bragg for having “ignored” the recent vintage immunity doctrine — saying the district attorney’s “hubris on that topic” and “stubborn insistence on offering official acts evidence in grand jury proceedings and at trial resulted in damage to the institution of the Presidency.”

The motion also criticizes the court itself for rushing ahead with the case “despite obviously relevant Supreme Court proceedings.”

The motion then lists a direct quote from Justice Clarence Thomas’s influential concurrence to the majority opinion: “Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former President for his official acts.”

Presidential immunity, the motion argues, dovetails with arguments for dismissal sourced from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Local elected officials such as DA Bragg have no valid basis to cause such disruptions, which also violate the Supremacy Clause,” the filing goes on. “Consequently, the federal Constitution is an absolute ‘legal impediment’ to further proceedings, and the case must be immediately dismissed.”

The motion elaborates on this point, at length:

As relevant here, “the Supremacy Clause prohibits state judges and prosecutors from interfering with a President’s official duties.” The Supreme Court has applied the Supremacy Clause in that fashion to federal employees since the 1800s.

…

The Supremacy Clause adds additional urgency to the need for immediate dismissal because DANY has created the nightmare scenario where a local, biased prosecutor is seeking to interfere with the outcome of the national election by encumbering the people’s choice of a leader with unacceptable burdens and distractions.

The third source of federal law cited by the defense is a statute: the Presidential Transition Act of 1963.

“The Presidential Transition Act applies to President Trump,” the motion goes on. “The Act’s legislative history makes clear that there is no material distinction between the President-elect and the post-inauguration sitting President for these purposes.”

Trump’s attorneys, citing precedent, say a presidential transition is effectively part of an incoming administration that implicates the “national interest” as well as the “public function” of the presidency.

This is essentially an argument that as president-elect, Trump is no longer a private citizen because his job already “includes evaluation of sensitive national security issues and associated grave risks.”

“[Bragg’s] insistence on continuing with these unlawful, failed proceedings intensifies the risk associated with that vulnerability,” the motion goes on. “President Trump has already commenced this complex. sensitive, and intensely time-consuming process. which is a ‘monumental undertaking.’ These proceedings are interfering with that process and must therefore be terminated immediately.”

The district attorney’s office has until Dec. 9, to file their response.

Source link

The post Trump cites Biden pardon in bid to end hush-money case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.