法官似乎倾向于推翻特朗普的封口费定罪
2026-11-05T21:30:16.388Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
在特朗普第二个总统任期进入两年之际，他仍在试图抹去自己[2024年的重罪定罪记录]。周四，纽约的一个上诉法官小组听取了特朗普的法律挑战，他因伪造商业记录以掩盖封口费付款来影响2016年总统大选而被定罪。
全部由民主党州长任命的五名大法官，有时似乎认可特朗普的论点，即联邦选举法和总统豁免权可能会影响这项定罪。
特朗普的律师辩称，与向斯托米·丹尼尔斯支付的封口费报销相关的定罪应当被推翻，部分依据是联邦选举法优先于州法律的论点。
反馈意见
特朗普的法律团队还表示，审判法官违反了美国最高法院2024年关于总统豁免权的裁决，允许白宫官员的证词和特朗普的推文——属于官方行为——在涉及非官方行为的刑事案件中被用作证据。
特朗普因34项伪造商业记录以实施或掩盖另一项犯罪的意图而被定罪。
在庭审中，曼哈顿地区检察官办公室的检察官表示，这项犯罪是为了通过包括违反《联邦竞选法案》（FECA）、伪造银行记录或税务犯罪等非法手段促进或阻止大选。
“就相关选举法共谋而言，关键在于（特朗普）及其同谋对自身行为的合法性毫不在意。他们想掩盖所作所为，并且在不被任何人发现的情况下支付这些封口费，”地区检察官办公室的上诉主管史蒂文·吴周四表示。
检察官在庭审中指出，违反《联邦竞选法案》是最明确的定罪依据，但特朗普的律师罗伯特·朱弗拉告诉上诉小组，这实际上是“推翻定罪的最明确依据”。
“而且法律非常明确，”他说，“司法部和联邦选举委员会对违反竞选捐款和支出的行为拥有专属管辖权。”
一个由12名纽约市民组成的陪审团裁定特朗普所有罪名成立，使他成为重刑犯。特朗普成功连任总统，在他就职前几天，法官判处他无条件释放。
周四，该小组向州检察官提出质疑，询问庭审团队在多大程度上依赖违反《联邦竞选法案》的证据来证明对特朗普的34项伪造商业记录指控。
“只是部分依赖，”史蒂文·吴说，并补充道，特朗普违反《联邦竞选法案》的证据是陪审员需要考量的事实，而非指控罪行的构成要件。
“优先适用原则的作用是阻止州直接执行联邦法规。本案中检方并非如此行事，”吴说。
助理法官巴哈蒂·皮特-伯克进一步追问吴，指出此案涉及竞选捐款。“这显然属于《联邦竞选法案》的管辖范围。你们用什么来规避这一点？”
吴表示，“《联邦竞选法案》仅限于对捐款和支出的直接限制。这源于相关判例和监管规定。但本案的指控以及对被告定罪所依据的法规，根本与支出或捐款无关。”
“如果你们考虑本案指控的重点——即针对纽约一家企业的欺诈行为，这根本不是《联邦竞选法案》所监管的内容，”法官补充道。
朱弗拉大量援引联邦优先适用原则的论点，但仍表示对美国最高法院2024年豁免权裁决的上诉解释可能具有先例意义。
“未来的其他总统也可能遇到类似情况，”朱弗拉说，“这不仅仅关乎特朗普总统——也关乎未来的总统。”
吴辩称，与白宫工作人员的对话以及特朗普的推文均属于非官方行为，因此不受豁免权保护，并补充称，即使法官错误地采纳了这些证据，证明特朗普有罪的证据也已足够充分。
他辩称，这些证据只是证明特朗普有罪的“沧海一粟”，因此，在特朗普有罪的证据压倒性的情况下，任何推定的错误都不会影响判决结果。
“能否存在与总统豁免权相关的‘无害错误’？”法官什洛莫·哈格勒质疑道。
朱弗拉表示，最高法院的豁免权裁决认定，总统的推文可被视为官方行动，因为这是他与美国民众沟通的方式。
法官特洛伊·韦伯宣读了最高法院的裁决，并询问朱弗拉，特朗普与前白宫通讯联络主任霍普·希克斯讨论如何回应媒体对这笔付款的询问，如何能增进美国民众的福祉。
朱弗拉表示，这些推文与特朗普的履职能力相关。特朗普的律师补充道，其他总统在任职期间也不得不在公开声明中为自己的类似指控进行辩护。
特朗普的长期顾问兼高级私人律师鲍里斯·埃普斯坦也出席了此次庭审，表明此案对总统的重要性。
Judges appear open to Trump’s push to overturn hush money conviction
2026-11-05T21:30:16.388Z / CNN
Two years into his second term, President Donald Trump is still trying to wipe his [2024 felony conviction] from the books. A panel of New York appellate justices on Thursday heard Trump’s legal challenges to his conviction on falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to influence the 2016 presidential election.
The five justices – who were all appointed by Democratic governors – at times appeared open to Trump’s arguments that federal election law and presidential immunity could affect the conviction.
His lawyers argued the conviction tied to the reimbursement of hush money payments to Stormy Daniels should be overturned based in part on the argument that federal election law preempts state law.
Ad Feedback
Trump’s legal team also says the trial judge ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision on presidential immunity by allowing testimony of White House officials and Trump’s tweets – official conduct – to be used as evidence in a criminal case involving unofficial acts.
Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.
At trial, prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said that crime was to promote or prevent an election through unlawful means, which could include violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), falsifying bank records, or tax crimes.
“For purposes of the underlying election law conspiracy, the point is that (Trump) and his co-conspirators were really indifferent to the legality of what they were doing. They wanted to hide what they were doing, and to make these hush money payments without anybody finding out,” Steven Wu, Chief of Appeals for the DA’s office, said Thursday.
The FECA violations were the most obvious ground for conviction, prosecutors said at trial, but Trump’s attorney Robert Giuffra told the appellate panel it’s actually “the most obvious ground for reversal.”
“And the law is quite clear,” he said. “The Department of Justice and the Federal Election Campaign Commission have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and enforce contribution and expenditure violations.”
A jury of 12 New Yorkers found Trump guilty on all counts, making him a felon. Trump was reelected president,and days before his inauguration the judge sentenced him to an unconditional release.
The panel Thursday challenged the state’s attorney on how heavily the trial team relied on the FECA violations to prove the 34 counts of falsifying business records against Trump.
“Only partially,” Wu said, adding that evidence of Trump’s FECA violations were facts for jurors to consider rather than elements of the charged crimes.
“What preemption does is prevent the state from directly enforcing a federal statute. That’s not what the prosecution was doing here,” Wu said.
Associate Justice Bahaati Pitt-Burke pressed Wu further, noting the case dealt with campaign contributions. “That’s clearly within FECA purview. What are you using to get around that?”
Wu said, “FECA is limited to direct limitations on contributions and expenditures. That comes from the cases, that comes from the regulation. But this prosecution and the statutes under which defendant were convicted are not about expenditures or contributions at all.”
“If you think about the focus of this prosecution – the fraud that was committed in the records of a New York enterprise. That is not what FECA regulates at all,” the judge added.
Giuffra leaned heavily on the federal preemption argument, but still said the appellate interpretation of the SCOTUS 2024 immunity decision could be precedent-setting.
“It could be some other president down the road,” Giuffra said. “It’s not just about President Trump – it’s about future presidents.”
Conversations with White House staffers and Trump’s tweets were both about unofficial acts and so not covered by immunity, Wu argued adding that even if the judge erroneously allowed the evidence there was plenty more to convict Trump.
They were a “drop in the bucket” in terms of evidence of Trump’s guilt, Wu argued, so any presumed error would be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of Trump’s guilt.
“Can there be such a thing as harmless error with regard to presidential immunity?” Justice Shlomo Hagler challenged.
The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling determined presidential tweets can be official actions because that’s how he communicates with the American people, Giuffra said.
Justice Troy Webber read from the Supreme Court decision and asked Guiffra how Trump’s discussions with former White House communications director Hope Hicks to respond to media inquiries about the payment go toward enriching Americans’ lives.
Giuifrra said the tweets relate to Trump’s fitness for office. Other presidents have had to similarly defend themselves against allegations in public statements while in office, Trump’s lawyer added.
Longtime Trump adviser and senior personal counsel Boris Epshteyn attended the proceedings as well, demonstrating the importance of the case to the president.
发表回复