Trump’s Legal Team Seeks Dismissal of Hush Money Conviction, Referencing Hunter Biden

President-elect Donald Trump’s legal team is wants to dismiss his hush money criminal conviction, arguing the case disrupts his presidential transition and presents unconstitutional challenges. In a filing made public Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers formally requested Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan throw out the case, calling it a politically motivated “failed lawfare” effort.

Trump’s attorneys argue that continuing the case would unfairly interfere with his return to the presidency following his victory in the November 2024 election. “Wrongly continuing proceedings in this failed lawfare case disrupts President Trump’s transition efforts,” the filing states, pointing to what they describe as an “overwhelming national mandate” granted to Trump by voters.

The legal team also rejected the suggestion of delaying sentencing until Trump completes his second term in 2029, calling the idea “ridiculous.”

In their filing, Trump’s lawyers referenced President Joe Biden’s recent pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, who had been convicted of tax and gun charges. They argued that the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecution of Trump mirrors what Biden described as “selective” and “unfair” treatment of his son.

“President Biden condemned the type of political theater that the Manhattan district attorney has engaged in,” Trump’s legal team stated, framing the case as part of a broader partisan attack.

Prosecutors now have until December 9 to respond to Trump’s motion to dismiss. While they have vowed to fight any dismissal attempts, they have shown some openness to postponing sentencing until Trump’s presidency ends. However, Trump’s lawyers insist that delaying sentencing is not an acceptable solution, as it would cast a cloud over his administration.

The hush money conviction stems from Trump’s alleged payments to silence claims of extramarital affairs, an issue that has dogged his political career. With his impending return to the White House, the case has become a flashpoint for debates over presidential immunity and political accountability.