Experts Dismiss Trump’s Attempt to Postpone Hush-Money Sentencing

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are currently requesting to delay the sentencing related to his New York hush-money case, which is scheduled for September 18. Their petition emphasizes a desire to postpone the sentencing until after the upcoming elections in November.

In a letter dated August 14, Trump’s legal team addressed Judge Juan Merchan, asking him to push back the sentencing date. Earlier this week, Judge Merchan rebuffed Trump’s plea to remove himself from the case, asserting that it was the third time Trump has made similar claims based on “innuendo and mischaracterizations” regarding his daughter’s affiliation with the Democratic Party.

The attorney’s request highlighted a belief that delaying the sentencing could help alleviate perceived conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety. This, they argue, would also coincide with an ongoing congressional inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the case.

According to the letter, which is partly focused on the integrity of judicial processes, postponing the sentencing until after the election could mitigate concerns about the fairness of subsequent legal proceedings.

Gregory Germain, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law, believes that Trump’s request is a strategic move aimed at building a basis for potential legal challenges in federal court. He suggested that Trump might argue that any actions taken by the judge could be seen as politically motivated interference with the federal election process.

“I doubt that the court will grant the delay,” Germain stated, “but it may give Trump an additional leg to stand on in case he wants to appeal the sentence later.”

Andrew Weissmann, a former federal prosecutor, indicated that Trump was likely to resist serving any potential sentence, regardless of the election’s outcome. He pointed out that there’s no legal reason that would prevent Trump from facing imprisonment if he receives a prison sentence after losing the election.

If Trump were to win, Weissmann noted, he might argue that a sitting president should not face imprisonment, suggesting that any potential sentence would have to wait until he leaves office.

Despite speculation around the possibility of postponement, Weissmann stated, “There are many reasons he should not avoid sentencing on September 18. His legal team will likely file multiple motions to postpone any sentencing.”

In May, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records, which included various forms of documentation connected to a $130,000 payment made in an effort to silence damaging allegations about his personal life. Each of these counts could result in a sentence of up to four years in prison. However, insiders suggest that he might serve less time due to his lack of prior convictions.

National security attorney Bradley Moss remarked that Trump is not likely to allow the sentencing to proceed without contention, even if it is pushed until post-election.

“If he wins, he will argue that being a sitting president precludes him from imprisonment,” Moss commented, adding that if he loses, Trump would likely leverage age and health concerns to argue against serving any time in prison.

Legal scholars contend that Trump should not receive any preferential treatment in his sentencing process. Anthony Michael Kreis, a constitutional law expert, asserted that Trump should be held to the same standards as any other defendant.

Previously, on July 2, Judge Merchan postponed the sentencing to September, noting that it would be necessary to revisit the situation then.

In their letter, Trump’s attorneys referenced this prior ruling, asserting that Trump should not face sentencing at all due to a recent Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity. The court ruled that presidents have “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” for actions taken while in office, which Trump’s defense argues should apply to their client’s case.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has maintained that the legal basis for the case remains sound and asserts that any supposed misuse of evidence would not have altered the trial’s outcome.

Additionally, Trump’s team argued that any public submission regarding sentencing should be withheld until the implications of the immunity ruling are thoroughly addressed. They contended that the case should not proceed until these matters are settled.

With a ruling on the immunity motion expected on September 16, just two days before the scheduled sentencing, Trump’s lawyers argued that a single day is insufficient for proper consideration of such significant legal questions. They highlighted that early voting in some states would begin before the scheduled sentencing.

Observations from legal experts imply that the initiation of early voting could diminish Trump’s argument for postponement since it would allow voters to cast their ballots potentially before any sentence is delivered.