2026年11月5日 美国东部时间上午6:00 / CBS新闻
特朗普总统因2016年向一名成人电影明星支付“封口费”相关的34项重罪被定罪两年多后，他的律师将于周四在纽约就其上诉进行辩论。
此案中特朗普的辩护律师有所变动：前辩护律师托德·布兰奇现已出任美国司法部长，另一名前律师埃米尔·博夫三世则成为了联邦法官。不过，特朗普新的私人律师团队在诉状中仍沿用了他在2024年整个审判期间提出的主张。
特朗普的律师罗伯特·朱弗拉——高端律所沙利文-克伦威尔律师事务所的联合主席，影响力颇大——在10月16日提交的诉状中开篇就提到了特朗普本人经常在社交媒体上声称的一句话：这起案件“本不该被提起”。
特朗普的律师和曼哈顿地区检察官阿尔文·布拉格的律师将各有15分钟时间，回答纽约中级上诉法院（第一上诉庭）法官的提问。双方都表示，此案最终会上诉至该州最高法院，即纽约上诉法院，甚至可能上诉至美国最高法院。
2024年5月，全体一致的陪审团判定特朗普有罪，罪名是参与伪造商业记录的计划，该记录涉及向他当时的律师迈克尔·科亨支付报销款。2016年大选前几天，科亨向成人电影明星斯托米·丹尼尔斯支付了13万美元，以换取她对多年前与特朗普据称发生的性关系保持沉默。特朗普否认了这些指控。
特朗普的律师辩称，这笔款项本应受联邦选举法管辖，他们认为联邦选举法优先于州级起诉。他们还声称，检察官违反了总统豁免权，且未能证明特朗普有“欺诈意图”。
“这里的问题在于，在这起刑事案件审判中提出的白宫声明和策略——即对直接关乎总统诚信与任职资格的个人行为不当的公开指控作出回应——是否属于官方行为，”朱弗拉写道。
布拉格的律师将2016年的“封口费”计划描述为“欺骗美国公众和政府监管机构的阴谋”。
他们在7月的一份诉状中写道：“此处的刑事指控源于[特朗普]非官方、非总统任期内的行为——这一点已有多个法院作出认定。”
就在这些辩论展开一周前，一名法官去世，该法官此前一直在主持特朗普为将此案从州法院移交至刑事法院而进行的长期平行诉讼程序。
这位名叫阿尔文·赫勒斯坦的法官多次驳回特朗普的主张，且在回应特朗普关于向科亨的报销款与其总统官方工作相关的说法时，言辞尤为尖锐。
“向科亨报销支付给[斯托米·丹尼尔斯]的封口费，不能被视为履行宪法规定的职责，”赫勒斯坦写道，“伪造商业记录以隐藏此类报销，并将这笔报销转为特朗普的商业支出、科亨的收入，同样与总统职责无关。”
Trump’s lawyers to argue for his criminal conviction in “hush money” case to be overturned
November 5, 2026 / 6:00 AM EST / CBS News
More than two years after President Trump was convicted of 34 felonies tied to a 2016 “hush money” payment to an adult film star, his lawyers are set to argue their appeal Thursday in New York.
Mr. Trump’s attorneys in the case have changed — one former defense attorney, Todd Blanche, is now U.S. attorney general, and another, Emil Bove III, is a federal judge — but his new team of personal lawyers has continued in filings to echo the arguments he made throughout the trial in 2024.
An Oct. 16 filing by Mr. Trump’s attorney Robert Giuffra, the powerful co-chair of the white shoe firm Sullivan & Cromwell, began with a line that Mr. Trump himself frequently said and posted on social media: The case, “should have never been brought.”
Lawyers for Mr. Trump and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will each get 15 minutes to respond to questions from New York’s mid-level appeals panel, the Appellate Division, First Department. Each side has indicated that the case is destined for the state’s highest court, called the Court of Appeals, and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court.
A unanimous jury convicted Mr. Trump in May 2024 for his part in a scheme to falsify business records related to reimbursements made to Michael Cohen, his attorney at the time. Cohen had paid $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels, days before the 2016 election, in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump years earlier. Mr. Trump has denied the allegations.
The payment, Mr. Trump’s attorney argued, should have been subject to federal election laws that they say preempt state prosecutions. They also claim the prosecutors violated presidential immunity and failed to show Mr. Trump had an “intent to defraud.”
“The question here is whether the White House statements and strategy introduced at trial in this criminal case—responding to public allegations of personal wrongdoing bearing directly on the President’s integrity and fitness for office—were official,” Giuffra wrote.
Lawyers for Bragg have characterized the 2016 “hush money” plan as “a conspiracy to defraud the American public and government regulators.”
“The criminal charges here arose from [Mr. Trump’s] unofficial, non-presidential conduct—as multiple courts have already found,” they wrote in a July brief.
The arguments come a week after the death of a judge who was presiding over a yearslong parallel effort by Mr. Trump to move the case from state to criminal court.
The judge, Alvin Hellerstein, repeatedly rejected Mr. Trump’s arguments, and was particularly scathing in his response to Mr. Trump’s claim that the reimbursements to Cohen were related to his official work as president.
“Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to [Stormy Daniels] cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty,” Hellerstein wrote. “Falsifying business records to hide such reimbursement, and to transform the reimbursement into a business expense for Trump and income to Cohen, likewise does not relate to a presidential duty.”
发表回复