法官再次驳回特朗普推翻纽约封口费定罪的请求


2026年8月28日 / 美国东部时间下午6:28 / 哥伦比亚广播公司/美联社

一名联邦法官周五再次驳回了特朗普总统要求推翻其封口费定罪的努力,拒绝了这位总统将这起州法院案件移交联邦法院审理,并以总统豁免权为由驳回诉讼的请求。

美国地区法官阿尔文·K·赫勒斯坦表示,特朗普再次提出该请求的理由“既不新颖,也不符合法律规定”,尤其是他声称前助手和律师的庭审证词,以及他在社交媒体上的言论,侵犯了总统豁免权。

“事实并非如此;向成人影片女星支付封口费,或是为掩盖丑闻而掩盖事实,都不属于总统豁免权的涵盖范围,”法官在提及向成人影片演员斯托米·丹尼尔斯支付的13万美元款项时说道。

赫勒斯坦曾指出,特朗普的律师团队原本认为他的工作仅需向美国第二巡回上诉法院认证州初审法院的案卷即可。

“联邦地区法院不是认证书记员,”法官写道。

这是赫勒斯坦第三次阻止特朗普让曼哈顿美国地区法院接管这起案件,该案此前已在纽约州法院完成审理并作出有罪判决。

周五下午过半,特朗普的法律团队已通知下级法院,他们将对这一裁决提起上诉。该团队的一名发言人将裁决称为“毫无根据且违法”。

“最高法院就豁免权作出的历史性裁决、联邦宪法和纽约州宪法,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,”该法律团队代表向美联社发表的声明中写道。“特朗普总统将提起强有力的上诉,并将在各个层面持续击败民主党人的政治迫害。”

特朗普总统于2024年在其两届总统任期之间被定罪,因向丹尼尔斯支付13万美元“封口费”而犯下34项伪造商业记录重罪。丹尼尔斯此前指控特朗普与其有婚外情。他被判处无条件释放,无需入狱或受到其他限制。特朗普否认与丹尼尔斯有染,也否认与支付该款项有关的任何不当行为。

这项有罪裁决使特朗普成为首位曾担任、现任美国联邦总统且被判定有罪的人。他目前正通过州法院上诉程序对定罪提出质疑,该案仍在审理中。

州检察官并未立即回应置评请求。

赫勒斯坦此前曾两次驳回特朗普移交案件的请求。第一次是在2023年3月他被起诉后。第二次是在庭审结束后,当时特朗普的律师试图以最高法院2024年7月的裁决为依据推翻定罪,该裁决称总统和前总统不会因公务行为被起诉,检察官也不得将公务行为作为非官方行为违法的证据。

特朗普就赫勒斯坦的庭审后裁决提起上诉,去年11月,第二巡回上诉法院命令法官重新考虑其裁决,理由是他未能考虑“与总统移交案件请求相关的重要问题”。

一个由三名法官组成的上诉小组表示,他们不会对法官应如何裁决发表意见,但指示赫勒斯坦仔细审查特朗普声称与公务行为相关的证据,以及总统是否可以主张这些行为是其白宫职责的一部分。

周五,赫勒斯坦写道:“讨论支付封口费以掩盖总统与斯托米·丹尼尔斯的关系,绝不可能属于公务行为。婚外情或掩盖婚外情,都不属于总统官方职责的‘外围范围’。”

上诉法官还指示赫勒斯坦确定特朗普是否“勤勉地寻求”将案件移交联邦法院,以及既然总统已在州法院被定罪并判刑,此案是否还能移交联邦法院。

在2月份的口头辩论中,赫勒斯坦对特朗普法律团队在最高法院裁决后的决策提出了质疑。

他指出,特朗普的律师没有立即申请将案件移交联邦法院,而是首先要求州法院法官胡安·默尚以豁免权为由推翻判决。通常情况下,此类请求必须在传讯后30天内提出,但华盛顿特区的一家联邦上诉法院裁定,如果有“正当理由”,可以例外。

特朗普的律师杰弗里·沃尔辩称,检察官急于开庭,而非等待最高法院就总统豁免权作出裁决,并且在最高法院作出裁决后,特朗普的法律团队时间紧迫,因为他的判刑安排在仅10天后。

特朗普的律师直到近两个月后才向赫勒斯坦提出干预请求,而他们向默尚提出的请求仍在审理中。这位法官称这是一项“战略决策”,并暗示他的律师先向州法院提起诉讼,导致他失去了在联邦法院寻求救济的权利。

在周五的书面裁决中,赫勒斯坦表示,特朗普是在寻求“二次机会”,而这是法律所不鼓励的。

法官补充道:“特朗普拖延提交移送申请属于‘典型的战略决策’,而‘他后来认为该决策不佳这一事实本身,并不足以构成正当理由’。”

Judge again rejects Trump’s bid to erase his New York hush money conviction

August 28, 2026 / 6:28 PM EDT / CBS/AP

A federal judge on Friday once again spurned President Trump’s effort to erase his hush money conviction, rejecting the president’s bid to move the state court case to federal court and have it dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said Mr. Trump’s reasons for renewing his request were “neither new nor legally sufficient,” particularly his claims that trial testimony by former aides and a lawyer, along with his social media statements, infringe on presidential immunity.

“They do not; paying hush money to an adult film star or engaging in a cover-up of an embarrassment are not subsumed in presidential immunity,” the judge said, referring to the $130,000 payoff to adult film actor Stormy Daniels.

At one point, Hellerstein noted that the president’s lawyers thought it was his job to merely certify the record in the state trial court to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Federal district courts are not certifying clerks,” the judge wrote.

It is the third time Hellerstein has blocked Mr. Trump from having the U.S. District Court in Manhattan seize control of the case from the New York state court where he was tried and convicted.

By midafternoon Friday, Mr. Trump’s legal team had notified the lower court it was appealing the ruling, which a spokesperson for the team called “baseless and lawless.”

“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,” read a statement issued on behalf of the legal team to The Associated Press. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.”

The president was convicted in 2024, in between his two terms, on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records for a $130,000 “hush money” payment to Daniels, who accused the president of an extramarital affair years earlier. He was given a sentence of unconditional discharge, which included no jail time or other restrictions. The president has denied both the affair with Daniels and any wrongdoing in connection with the payment to her.

The guilty verdict made Mr. Trump the first former — and now current — U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. He is also challenging his conviction through the state court appellate process, which is pending.

State prosecutors did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Hellerstein rejected Mr. Trump’s requests to move the case twice before. The first was after his March 2023 indictment. The second was after his trial, as his lawyers sought to nix his conviction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that presidents and ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts and prosecutors can’t use official acts as evidence that unofficial actions were illegal.

Mr. Trump appealed Hellerstein’s post-trial ruling and, last November, the 2nd Circuit ordered the judge to reconsider his decision, finding that he had failed to consider “important issues relevant” to the president’s request to move the case.

A three-judge appellate panel said it expressed no view on how he should rule but instructed Hellerstein to closely review evidence that Mr. Trump claimed was related to official acts and whether the president could argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties.

On Friday, Hellerstein 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.”

The judges also instructed Hellerstein to determine if Mr. Trump had “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that the president has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

During oral arguments in February, Hellerstein took issue with the Trump legal team’s decision-making after the Supreme Court ruling.

Instead of immediately seeking to move the case to federal court, he noted, Mr. Trump’s lawyers first asked the trial judge in state court, Juan Merchan, to throw out the verdict on immunity grounds. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., has ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision and that the president’s legal team was crunched for time after the high court’s ruling because his sentencing was scheduled for just 10 days later.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers did not ask Hellerstein to intervene until nearly two months later, while their request to Merchan was still pending. The judge called that a “strategic decision” and suggested that by going to the state court first, his lawyers cost him the right to pursue remedies in federal court.

In his written ruling Friday, Hellerstein said Mr. Trump was asking for a “‘second bite at the apple,’ a result the law disfavors.”

The judge added that “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.’”

评论

发表回复

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

湘ICP备2026001899号-2