Trump's Lawyers Argue Appeal of Hush-Money Conviction Before New York Appeals Court
Photo: The Guardian USLawyers for President Donald Trump asked a New York appeals court on Thursday to throw out his May 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records over a $130,000 hush-money payment to adult film performer Stormy Daniels. The case is before the Appellate Division, First Department, the state's mid-level appeals court. Trump's lawyers and lawyers for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg each get 30 minutes to answer the judges' questions. A jury unanimously convicted Trump over reimbursements to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen, who paid Daniels days before the 2016 election for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter. Trump has denied wrongdoing and the encounter. In January 2025, after he had won the next election, the trial judge gave him an unconditional discharge, meaning no jail, fine or other penalty, though the conviction stands. Trump was not expected to attend. His lawyers argued that Bragg's legal theory is preempted by federal campaign law, and the panel asked whether presidential immunity or federal law bars the conviction. Both sides have said the case is likely headed to New York's Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
The left-leaning outlets, The Guardian US and CBS News, give the most background. The Guardian's headline says Trump is trying to get a conviction in a "corruption case" thrown out, and it recounts the discharge, his denials and his recent social media posts. CBS notes that former defense lawyer Todd Blanche is now attorney general and Emil Bove III is a federal judge. It also cites a filing by new lawyer Robert Giuffra saying the case should never have been brought. The right-leaning Newsmax offers a short item, saying the conviction "made history" and giving no detail on the arguments. The Hill, an alternative source, differs by focusing on the judges' questions about immunity and federal preemption, which the others omit. The sides agree on the date, the appeal and the conviction, but differ in how much context they give and in the Guardian's corruption framing.
How the sides differ Left sources detail the conviction, the payment and the lawyers' changing roles; right sources give a brief note of the appeal; alternative sources stress the panel's immunity questions.
Headline, comparison and summary written by AI from the articles below. AI can make mistakes, so check the original articles before relying on a detail.
The Guardian US and CBS News lead with the appeal and give background on the conviction, the Daniels payment and Trump's denials. CBS adds the lawyers' changing roles and Giuffra's filing; the Guardian adds the discharge.
The Hill leads with the appeals panel's questions on whether presidential immunity or federal law bars the conviction, and cites Trump's lawyers arguing that Bragg's theory is preempted by federal campaign law.
Newsmax gives a brief report that Trump's lawyers are urging the appeals court to throw out the conviction, noting it came more than two years ago and made history.