Lawyers for former President Trump are seeking to delay his sentencing hearing in New York v. Trump until after the November presidential election, claiming that there are “naked election-interference objectives” at play. Trump was found guilty on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree following a six-week trial resulting from an investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump’s initial sentencing was scheduled for July 11 but was postponed until September 18, just before the Republican National Convention. His attorney, Todd Blanche, is now seeking a further delay to the sentencing hearing.
Blanche argued that the case should be dismissed, pointing to Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominees, respectively, wrongly referencing the case in a public speech. He also highlighted the fact that Judge Juan Merchan’s daughter works at Authentic Campaigns, which represents top Democratic candidates. Blanche emphasized that sentencing is currently set to occur after the commencement of early voting in the presidential election, and requested an adjournment until after the election to reduce potential integrity issues in future proceedings. Blanche stressed that there is no need to rush and no valid reason for maintaining the current sentencing date.
In his arguments for dismissal, Blanche has contended that Manhattan District Attorney Bragg presented official acts evidence during the trial, including White House communications with staffers. The U.S. Supreme Court previously ruled that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts. The court specified that Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts but left the determination of what constitutes official versus unofficial acts to the lower court. Blanche is pushing for the dismissal of the case based on this immunity ruling, seeking to overturn Trump’s criminal conviction.
Trump’s attorney’s request to delay the sentencing hearing until after the presidential election has raised questions about potential interference in the legal process. The connection between the case and the upcoming election, as well as the involvement of high-profile political figures, has added complexity to the situation. Blanche’s efforts to have the case dismissed based on presidential immunity and alleged interference further complicate the legal proceedings. The outcome of this request could have significant implications for Trump’s legal standing and the broader political landscape leading up to the election.
The delay in Trump’s sentencing hearing in the New York criminal case has sparked debate over the potential impact on the integrity of the legal process. The arguments put forth by Trump’s attorney regarding potential election interference and the need to respect the timing of the presidential election have been met with scrutiny and skepticism. The involvement of political figures, including Vice President Harris and Gov. Walz, has added a political dimension to the legal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and the lower court’s interpretation of official versus unofficial acts will play a pivotal role in determining the outcome of this case and Trump’s legal standing. The decision to adjourn the sentencing hearing will likely be closely monitored in the coming months leading up to the election.
