President-elect Donald Trump's lawyers called for an "immediate dismissal" of New York v. Trump, declaring that the American people’s choice to elect the former president to a second term "supersedes" Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s "political motivations."

In a letter to Judge Juan Merchan on Wednesday, Trump defense attorney and now-nominee for Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche demanded the case against the president-elect be tossed. 

BRAGG CASE 'EFFECTIVELY OVER' IN 'MAJOR VICTORY,' TRUMP OFFICIALS SAY

"On November 5, 2024, the Nation’s People issued a mandate that supersedes the political motivations of DANY’s ‘People,’" Blanche wrote. "This case must be immediately dismissed." 

Blanche said that "immediate dismissal of this case is mandated by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interests of justice, in order to facilitate the orderly transition of Executive power following President Trump’s overwhelming victory in the 2024 Presidential Election." 

Blanche’s pre-motion letter on Wednesday was sent in order to request permission to file a motion to dismiss by Dec. 20, 2024 and to request a stay on all deadlines, which Bragg and New York prosecutors have agreed to. 

Blanche argued that Bragg "appears to not yet be ready to dismiss this politically-motivated and fatally flawed case, which is what is mandated by the law and will happen as justice takes its course." Blanche pointed to Bragg’s own election campaign for another term as Manhattan district attorney. 

Blanche argued that "continuing with this case would be ‘uniquely destabilizing’ and threatens to ‘hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs.’" 

"The Court must address these new issues and dismiss the case, prior to issuing a decision on the previously filed Presidential immunity motion," Blanche explained. "Any other action would obviously violate the presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause." 

Blanche added that "even if the Court were to wrongly deny the new interests-of-justice motion, which it should not do, the appropriate forum for any additional proceedings must first be resolved in President Trump’s removal appeal." 

Blanche said that if the court denies any aspect of relief, including by moving forward with any proceedings, Trump would request that the court stay the implementation of the ruling so that President Trump has "adequate time to pursue appellate review." 

The letter comes after Bragg on Tuesday sent a letter to Merchan requesting a stay on the case until 2029. Bragg said he would oppose Trump’s motion to dismiss but said he would be open to receiving the defense argument. 

Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree stemming from the yearslong investigation related to alleged hush money payments run by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance initiated the investigation, and Bragg prosecuted Trump. 

After an unprecedented six-week trial in New York City, a jury found the president guilty on all counts. 

PROSECUTORS REQUEST STAY IN TRUMP NY CASE UNTIL 2029 AS DEFENSE PLANS MOTION FOR DISMISSAL 'ONCE AND FOR ALL'

Judge Merchan last week granted a stay on all deadlines associated with conviction proceedings against Trump in the final weeks before he is sworn in as the 47th president of the United States – including the Nov. 26 sentencing date. 

Trump officials on Tuesday argued that Bragg's request was a representation of "a total failure of the prosecution," and interpreted the case as being "effectively over." 

Meanwhile, Trump attorneys have already requested that Merchan overturn the guilty verdict altogether, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office.

Merchan has not yet ruled on the immunity argument, which prosecutors anticipate being included in the coming dismissal motion from the defense. 

Trump's legal team argued that certain evidence presented by Bragg and New York prosecutors during the trial should not have been admitted, as they were "official acts." 

In that argument, Blanche said that testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks; former special assistant to the president Madeleine Westerhout; testimony regarding the Special Counsel’s Office and congressional investigations and the pardon power; testimony regarding President Trump’s response to FEC Inquiries; his presidential Twitter posts and other related testimony was impermissibly admitted during trial. 

Trump attorneys also pointed to Trump’s disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics as president. 

Blanche said "official-acts evidence" that Bragg presented to the grand jury "contravened the holding in Trump because Presidents ‘cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution,'" the motion read. "The Presidential immunity doctrine recognized in Trump pertains to all ‘criminal proceedings,’ including grand jury proceedings when a prosecutor ‘seeks to charge’ a former President using evidence of official acts."

Blanche argued that Bragg "violated the Presidential immunity doctrine by using similar official-acts evidence in the grand jury proceedings that gave rise to the politically motivated charges in this case." 

"Because an Indictment so tainted cannot stand, the charges must be dismissed," Blanche argued. 

The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on presidential immunity came from a question that stemmed from charges brought against Trump in a separate, federal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith related to the events on Jan. 6, 2021 and any alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in that case. 

Smith is winding down his cases against Trump following his election as the 47th president. 

Smith’s classified records case against Trump was dismissed earlier this year by a federal judge in Florida who ruled that the special counsel was unlawfully appointed.