In a recent filing, Manhattan prosecutors firmly stood their ground, asserting that there is no legal basis to overturn the conviction of former President Donald Trump in the hush money case. This comes in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. The district attorney's office argued that any error committed during the trial was "harmless" when weighed against the "overwhelming evidence" of Trump's guilt.

Trump's lawyers had contended that his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records should be vacated, citing the Supreme Court ruling that evidence of a president's official acts should not be utilized in a trial. Specifically, they pointed out the testimony of former White House aide Hope Hicks and Trump's tweets as examples.

However, prosecutors countered these arguments, noting that the crimes for which Trump was convicted - falsifying business records to interfere in the 2016 presidential election - were not categorized as "official acts." They emphasized that the Supreme Court's ruling on evidence does not apply to this particular case. The district attorney's office also highlighted the fact that Trump's defense team did not raise objections during the trial concerning most of the evidence they are now challenging, suggesting that they cannot raise those objections post-trial.

Prosecutors highlighted that the evidence Trump claims is impacted by the Supreme Court's ruling only represents a small portion of the extensive testimony and documentary evidence reviewed by the jury. They emphasized that there is a wealth of overwhelming evidence supporting Trump's guilt on all 34 felony charges.

Furthermore, the district attorney's office argued that Trump's tweets introduced during the trial should not be considered official acts since they consisted solely of "unofficial acts" without any immunity protection. They pointed out that the Supreme Court recognized that Trump could make public statements, including tweets, in an unofficial capacity, such as when speaking as a candidate for office or party leader, rather than as the President exercising his Article II powers.

Regarding the testimony from Hope Hicks, prosecutors asserted that her account merely confirmed the substantial evidence that Trump sought to conceal both his sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels and the broader Trump Tower conspiracy. They downplayed the significance of her testimony, stating that it was just one piece of the extensive evidence proving Trump's intentions.

In addition, the district attorney's office argued against dismissing the indictment by pointing out that the grand jury did not rely on evidence of "official acts."

Trump's lawyers have requested permission from the judge overseeing the case to file a response to the district attorney's filing. The sentencing, originally scheduled for September, was delayed to allow for arguments over the immunity issue. It remains to be seen how the court will ultimately rule in this high-stakes legal battle.