2026-08-28T17:18:15.385Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/28/politics/trump-hush-money-federal-court-rejected
一名联邦法官再次驳回了唐纳德·特朗普总统将其纽约州刑事封口费案件移交联邦法院审理的法律诉求，这一举措原本可能会降低推翻其定罪的难度。
地区法官阿尔文·赫勒斯坦在周五的裁决中表示，特朗普提出的理由“既不新颖，也不具备法律依据”。
赫勒斯坦此前曾驳回过特朗普的移案申请，但联邦上诉法院去年秋季裁定，鉴于美国最高法院2024年7月作出的具有里程碑意义的总统豁免权裁决，地区法院法官必须重新考虑这一申请。
法官在2月份的听证会上听取了特朗普律师团队和曼哈顿地区检察官办公室检察官的陈述，但直到现在才作出裁决。周五，赫勒斯坦坚持原有立场，认为特朗普在州案件中被指控的行为属于私人行为，与其联邦公职无关。
“检方的起诉源于特朗普总统为支付成人电影演员封口费而进行报销的私人行为，”赫勒斯坦在周五的裁决中写道。“该行为以及受到质疑的证据，与其联邦公职职位没有实质性关联。若认为这些事实与联邦公职‘相关’，则会将该词语的定义变得‘宽泛到毫无意义’。”
特朗普已就周五的裁决立即提起上诉。
特朗普法律团队的一名发言人在一份声明中表示：“最高法院关于豁免权的历史性裁决、联邦和纽约州宪法以及其他既定法律先例，都要求将曼哈顿地区检察官发起的这场政治迫害移交联邦法院审理，并立即予以推翻和驳回。”
特朗普的律师已就其2024年的刑事定罪提起上诉，该罪名涉及34项伪造商业记录的指控，与2016年总统大选期间向成人电影演员斯托米·丹尼尔斯支付封口费有关。他们要求将案件移交联邦法院的单独行动早在州审判之前就已启动，以便联邦法官能够解释联邦优先管辖权和总统豁免权问题。联邦审理程序还能为其上诉至最高法院提供更快捷的途径。
尽管被判有罪，特朗普最终被判处无条件释放，这意味着他未受到任何处罚，定罪实质上仅具象征意义。不过，这仍使特朗普成为首位被判重罪的总统。
在定罪数月后，他的律师团队凭借2024年的豁免权裁决再次提起上诉。该裁决规定，总统免受针对其官方行为的刑事起诉，并禁止检察官提交涉及官方行为的证据，即便他们是在调查与该总统私人行为相关的所谓犯罪。
特朗普的辩护团队长期以来一直辩称，特朗普不应因封口费计划被起诉，因为他受到总统豁免权的保护——他在任期间为其前私人律师迈克尔·科恩报销了2016年大选期间科恩策划的掩盖计划费用。
在最新的裁决中，法官写道：“有关封口费支付以掩盖总统与斯托米·丹尼尔斯关系的讨论，绝不可能是官方行为。婚外情或掩盖婚外情，并不属于总统官方职责的‘核心范畴’。”
对特朗普而言，争议焦点在于曼哈顿检察官在封口费审判中不当引入了涉及白宫工作人员行为的证据，他们称这些证据证明特朗普是以个人而非总统身份实施犯罪。
赫勒斯坦对此不予认同：“总统的助手可以为总统处理非官方的私人事务。”
去年11月，美国第二巡回上诉法院将此案发回赫勒斯坦审理，并表示地区法院必须重新考虑此案，但未就最高法院的裁决是否会对特朗普有利作出评判。
特朗普的律师还等待了约两个月才向联邦法院提交重新提出的移案申请，他们最初曾要求州法院法官胡安·默查恩驳回定罪裁决。默查恩驳回了该动议，特朗普对定罪的上诉仍在州上诉渠道推进。
2月份，赫勒斯坦称特朗普选择先向州法院提出申请是一项战略决策。“你做出了选择，试图‘两头下注’，”他当时就暗示了周五的裁决结果。
在周五的裁决中，赫勒斯坦表示特朗普提交重新移案申请的时机过晚。“特朗普拖延提交移案申请属于‘典型的战略决策’，而‘他后来认为该决策失误这一事实本身，并不足以构成正当理由’。”
州上诉程序仍在进行中，可能会上诉至纽约上诉法院，如果特朗普在下级上诉法院败诉，还有可能最终上诉至美国最高法院。
本文已更新补充更多细节。
Federal judge says Trump discussing payoff to Stormy Daniels isn’t an official presidential action
2026-08-28T17:18:15.385Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/28/politics/trump-hush-money-federal-court-rejected
A federal judge again denied President Donald Trump’s legal effort to get his New York state criminal hush money case moved to federal court, a move that could have made it easier to reverse his conviction.
District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said in a ruling Friday that Trump’s cited grounds were “neither new nor legally sufficient.”
Hellerstein has previously denied Trump’s request to move the case, but a federal appellate court ruled last fall that the district court judge must reconsider in light of the landmark presidential immunity ruling in July 2024 from the US Supreme Court.
The judge heard arguments from lawyers for Trump and prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office at a hearing in February but did not issue a ruling until now. Friday, Hellerstein maintained his position that Trump’s acts as charged in the state’s case against him were private and unrelated to his federal office.
“The People’s prosecution arises from President Trump’s private conduct surrounding the reimbursement of hush money payments to an adult film star,” Hellerstein wrote Friday. “That conduct, and the challenged evidence, bears no substantive relation to his position in federal office. To consider these facts to be ‘relating to’ a federal office would give the words a definition that is ‘so broad that it is meaningless.’”
Trump immediately appealed Friday’s ruling.
“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement.
Lawyers for Trump have appealed his 2024 criminal conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election. Their separate efforts to get the case moved to federal court started before the state trial, so a federal judge could interpret federal preemption and presidential immunity. The federal track would also offer a faster route for his appeal to get to the Supreme Court.
Despite the guilty finding, Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge, meaning he faced no penalties and the conviction was essentially in name only. It did, however, make Trump the first president convicted of a felony.
Months after his conviction, his lawyers tried again in the wake of the immunity decision that said presidents are protected from criminal prosecution for official acts and barred prosecutors from attempting to enter evidence involving official acts, even if they were pursuing alleged crimes involving that president’s private conduct.
Trump’s defense team has long argued Trump can’t be prosecuted in connection to the hush money scheme because he’s protected by presidential immunity – he reimbursed his former personal attorney Michael Cohen while in office for a cover up scheme Cohen orchestrated during the 2016 election.
In his latest ruling, the judge wrote, “There is no way that discussions regarding hush money payments to cover up the President’s relations with Stormy Daniels could be an official act. An affair, or a cover-up of an affair, is not within the “‘outer perimeter’ of the President’s official responsibilities.”
For Trump, the debate is whether Manhattan prosecutors improperly introduced evidence involving White House staffers’ actions at the hush money trial that they allege was Trump’s crimes as an individual separate from his capacity as president.
Hellerstein disagreed: “A president’s assistant can work on unofficial, personal matters for the president.”
Last November, the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals kicked the case back to Hellerstein and said the district court must reconsider but didn’t weigh in on whether the SCOTUS decision should tip the scales for Trump.
Trump’s lawyers also waited about two months to file that renewed request in federal court, first asking the state court Judge Juan Merchan to dismiss the conviction. Merchan denied the motion and Trump’s appeal of his conviction is still moving through state appellate channels.
In February, Hellerstein called it a strategic decision to petition Merchan before the federal court. “You made a choice. You sought two bites at the apple,” he said, signaling Friday’s ruling back then.
In his order Friday, Hellerstein said Trump waited too long to file the renewed request for removal in federal court. “Trump’s delay in filing for removal constitutes a “quintessential strategic decision,” and the “fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause.”
The state appeal is also ongoing and could advance to the New York’s Court of Appeals and potentially reach the US Supreme Court if Trump is unsuccessful at the lower appellate levels.
This story has been updated with additional details.
发表回复