2小时前 | 发布于2026年2月4日，美国东部时间下午4:00 | 美国有线电视新闻网(CNN)政治版
作者：[卡拉·斯坎内尔]
斯蒂凡尼·雷诺兹/彭博社/盖蒂图片社
联邦法官对总统唐纳德·特朗普试图将其封口费定罪上诉移至联邦法院的主张表示怀疑——此前其律师已在另外两个法院提出过申诉。
法官阿尔文·赫勒斯坦(Alvin Hellerstein)表示，特朗普的律师首先向主持刑事审判的州法院法官提交了有关总统豁免权的美国最高法院裁决，而非联邦法官，直到近两个月后才转而向联邦法院提出诉求，这一做法错过了最佳时机。
“你们做了一个选择。你们想’咬两次苹果’，”赫勒斯坦周三对特朗普的律师说道。
他还就”案件应移至联邦法院，因为特朗普可以主张豁免权作为辩护”的论点向其律师提出质疑。他称这些论点”颇具煽动性”，并表示将在日后作出裁决。
特朗普的律师试图将上诉移至联邦法院，以便联邦法官能够审理涉及联邦优先管辖权和总统豁免权的争议。移至联邦法院还将加快案件被美国最高法院审理的进程。
特朗普于2024年因与向成人电影演员斯托米·丹尼尔斯支付封口费相关的34项伪造商业记录州级指控被定罪。
在周三的口头辩论中，赫勒斯坦表示，特朗普的律师似乎做出了战略性决定，先将最高法院关于总统豁免权的裁决提交给主持审判的州法官胡安·梅尔尚(Juan Merchan)，然后在该裁决公布58天后才试图将案件移至联邦法院。
特朗普的律师杰弗里·沃尔(Jeffrey Wall)反驳了赫勒斯坦所谓其”想再咬一口”的说法。
“如果我们绕过梅尔尚法官，那将是对其极大的不尊重，”沃尔表示。他称，由于特朗普将在10天后由该州法官判刑，他们必须在州法官之前迅速行动。
赫勒斯坦指出，特朗普的律师错过了法律规定的30天将案件移至联邦法院的窗口期，现在他们的责任是证明是否存在”充分理由”允许他们再次尝试上诉。
“你们所做的一切只是说，你们的充分理由是害怕激怒州法院，希望州法院先对最高法院的裁决作出裁决，之后才在联邦法院提出这一论点，”法官表示。
“你们做出了战略性决定，你们在寻找能获得更有利裁决的地方，这表明了你们的意图，”法官称。
“我的论点是，这对你来说是致命的，”赫勒斯坦说。
[相关文章：美国总统唐纳德·特朗普于2025年6月10日在华盛顿特区白宫椭圆形办公室。内森·霍华德/路透社]
[联邦上诉法院就特朗普试图推翻封口费定罪的诉讼展开辩论 4分钟阅读]
特朗普同时还在州法院对34项伪造商业记录以影响2016年总统选举的定罪提出上诉。该上诉最终可提交至美国最高法院，但需经过多层审查。
赫勒斯坦此前曾驳回特朗普将案件移至联邦法院的请求，认定特朗普主张的总统豁免权不适用。特朗普在最高法院就总统豁免权作出裁决后再次提出动议，主张包括其前白宫顾问霍普·希克斯的证词以及其任内推文在内的证据使用不当，其定罪应被推翻。
当时赫勒斯坦驳回了移案请求，称”与执行部门的法定或宪法授权或职能无关的、私人策划的私人行为，应视为非官方行为”。
特朗普提出上诉，11月第二巡回上诉法院将案件发回赫勒斯坦，要求其根据最高法院关于总统豁免权的裁决进行进一步分析。
周三，特朗普的律师沃尔辩称，曼哈顿地方检察官办公室在庭审中提出的所谓官方行为证据（包括特朗普的推文、其前白宫助手霍普·希克斯的庭审证词以及关于特朗普与其司法部长对话的证词）改变了案件性质，现在应移至联邦法院。
“地方检察官手中掌握着这些关键证据。他本不必在庭审中引入这些证据来证明其指控。一旦他这么做了，这就变成了一起涉及这些官方行为的起诉，”沃尔表示。
“这是否足以使其成为联邦案件？我认为答案显然是肯定的，”沃尔说。
该律师补充道：”我认为你们无需深究。这一切都由第二巡回法院处理即可。”
沃尔称，法官无需决定豁免权论点的是非曲直，只需认定他们拥有所谓”可成立的辩护”以将案件移至联邦法院。
地方检察官办公室的律师史蒂文·吴(Steven Wu)辩称，对证据的争议不能作为刑事指控的辩护。
“被告似乎认为，一旦引入官方行为的证据，就会以某种方式改变刑事诉讼的性质。但这根本不成立。这些指控源于完全非官方和私人的行为，”吴表示。
在周三的辩论中，尽管法官对特朗普的多项法律论点持怀疑态度，但他承认了一项对其有吸引力的技术性策略。
“这想法很有意思，因为我可以把整个问题都推给上诉法院，”赫勒斯坦表示。
Judge to Trump lawyers trying to move hush money appeal to federal court: ‘You sought two bites at the apple’
2 hr ago | PUBLISHED Feb 4, 2026, 4:00 PM ET | CNN Politics
By
[Kara Scannell]
President Donald Trump arrives for the world premiere of “MELANIA” at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, US, on Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026.
Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg/Getty Images
A federal judge was skeptical of President Donald Trump’s argument to try to move the appeal of his hush money conviction to federal court — after lawyers already took their shot in two other courts.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein suggested Trump’s attorneys missed their chance by first taking the US Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity to the state court judge who oversaw the criminal trial and not to a federal judge until almost two months later.
“You made a choice. You sought two bites at the apple,” Hellerstein told Trump’s lawyers Wednesday.
He also quizzed Trump’s lawyer over the argument that the case should move to federal court because Trump could claim as a defense that he has immunity. Calling the arguments “provocative,” he said he would issue a ruling later.
Trump’s attorneys are trying to get the appeal of his hush money conviction moved into federal court where the judges could interpret challenges involving federal preemption and presidential immunity. Removal would also plow a quicker path to have the appeal heard by the US Supreme Court.
Trump was convicted in 2024 of 34 state charges of falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
During oral arguments on Wednesday, Hellerstein said Trump’s attorneys appeared to make a strategic decision to bring the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity first to Judge Juan Merchan, the state judge who oversaw the trial, before trying to move the case to federal court which it did 58 days after the decision came down.
Jeffrey Wall, an attorney for Trump, pushed back against Hellerstein’s comment that he was trying to get another bite at the apple.
“It would have been disrespectful in spades” to Judge Merchan if they bypassed him, Wall said. He said they had to move quickly before the state judge because Trump was set to be sentenced by him 10 days later.
Hellerstein said Trump’s attorneys missed the 30-day window allowed under the statute to move the case into federal court and their burden now was whether there was “good cause” to allow them to try again.
“All your doing is saying your good cause is you’re afraid to anger the state court and you want to give the state court the first chance” to rule on the Supreme Court decision before trying the argument in federal court, the judge said.
“You’ve made a strategic decision. You’re seeing where you can get a better decision and that is indicative of the intent,” the judge said.
“My thesis is that was fatal to you,” Hellerstein said.
[Related article U.S. President Donald Trump sits in the Oval Office at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., on June 10, 2025. Nathan Howard/Reuters Federal appeals court wrestles with Trump effort to fight hush money conviction 4 min read]
Trump is simultaneously appealing his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records to influence the 2016 presidential election in state court. That appeal can ultimately be brought to the US Supreme Court but it has additional layers of review.
Hellerstein had previously rejected Trump’s effort to move the case into federal court, finding the argument that Trump had presidential immunity didn’t apply. Trump later tried again after the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. He argued the use of evidence, including testimony from Trump’s former White House advisor Hope Hicks and his tweets while in office, were improperly used and his conviction should be overturned.
At the time Hellerstein denied that motion for removal, writing, “Private schemes with private actors, unconnected to any statutory or constitutional authority or function of the executive, are considered unofficial acts.”
Trump appealed and in November the Second Circuit Court of Appeals sent it back to Hellerstein to conduct further analysis considering the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
On Wednesday, Wall, the attorney for Trump, argued when the Manhattan district attorney’s office introduced evidence of what they argued were official acts — such as Trump’s tweets, trial testimony from his former White House aide Hope Hicks, and testimony about conversations Trump had with his attorney general — it changed the case and now it should be moved into federal court.
“The district attorney held those keys in his hand. He didn’t have to introduce that evidence at trial to prove up his case. Once he did this became a prosecution relating to those official acts,” Wall argued.
“Is that enough to make it a federal case? I think the answer to that is obviously yes,” Wall said.
The attorney added, “I don’t think you have to get to the bottom of this. It’s all for the Second Circuit.”
Wall said that the judge doesn’t have to decide the merits of the argument on immunity, only that they have what is called a “colorable defense” to move the case into federal court.
Steven Wu, an attorney for the district attorney’s office, argued that a fight over evidence is not a defense to criminal charges.
“The defendant seems to assume that because evidence of official acts is introduced that somehow transforms the nature of the criminal action. That’s just not true. The charges arise out of conduct that is wholly unofficial and private,” Wu said.
During Wednesday’s argument, while the judge was skeptical of many of Trump’s legal arguments, he acknowledged a technical maneuver that appealed to him.
“That’s a delicious thought because I then dump the whole problem on the Court of Appeals,” Hellerstein said.
发表回复