Judge Postpones Trump Hush Money Sentencing Until After Election Day

Donald Trump will not face sentencing in his hush money case until after the presidential election in November. The judge presiding over the criminal case decided to postpone the upcoming court date to avoid any appearance of political interference in the crucial weeks leading up to Election Day.

As the first president ever convicted of a crime, Trump will not appear before Justice Juan Merchan in a Manhattan courtroom until November 26. This is nearly six months after a jury found him guilty on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records in an effort to improperly influence the 2016 election.

This decision by Judge Merchan represents a notable win for the Republican presidential nominee. Trump’s campaign has been built around claims of political persecution and a justice system working against him. The judge had initially pushed back Trump’s sentencing to September 18 before delaying it further to accommodate this latest decision.

Merchan originally scheduled the July 11 court date but agreed to postpone based on Trump’s request to allow time to consider a motion aimed at overturning the jury’s verdict. This motion was influenced by a recent Supreme Court ruling that suggested presidents may be shielded from some criminal prosecution for acts carried out while in office.

The judge has also stalled a ruling on this immunity claim, which was anticipated for this month, until November 12. If necessary, a sentencing hearing will occur after that date on November 26, post-Election Day, which falls on November 5.

In their request for the delay, Trump’s lawyers accused the court and prosecutors of engaging in “election interference.” They argued that the timing for the September 18 court date demonstrated a lack of reasonableness, with only a single day separating the potential decision on immunity and what they described as an “unwarranted sentencing.”

Attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove contended that there was “no valid countervailing reason” for maintaining the current sentencing date and argued against the urgency of the matter.

In his four-page order, Judge Merchan mentioned that the arguments presented by Trump’s legal team revived a multitude of perceived grievances that had already been discussed in prior filings. He remarked that these grievances did not warrant the court’s further attention.

However, Judge Merchan acknowledged that there were valid reasons for postponing the sentencing hearing. He emphasized the importance of this case, describing it as unique in the nation’s history and underlining his extensive involvement since its inception.

“Were this Court to decide, after careful consideration of the Supreme Court’s [decision], that this case should proceed, it will be faced with one of the most critical and difficult decisions a trial court judge faces — the sentencing of a defendant found guilty of crimes by a unanimous jury of his peers,” Merchan wrote.

Following diligent service, the jury’s verdict in Trump’s hush money trial “must be respected” and should not be overshadowed by the impending presidential election, according to Merchan. He acknowledged that the current climate complicates the requirements necessary for a sentencing hearing, should it be needed.

“This is not a decision this Court makes lightly,” Merchan concluded, “but it is the decision which in this Court’s view, best advances the interests of justice.”

Trump was convicted on May 30 after a trial that included 16 days of witness testimony followed by two days of jury deliberations. The jury found Trump guilty of all counts related to falsifying business records tied to payments made to silence adult film star Stormy Daniels concerning an alleged encounter with him in 2006.

Prosecutors contended that Trump’s actions were part of a broader effort to corruptly influence the outcome of the 2016 election by covering up politically damaging stories before the election took place.

Separately, a federal judge rejected Trump’s attempts to move the case to federal court, asserting that the case does not involve official acts performed by the president that would be eligible for immunity. Critics of the Supreme Court’s ruling suggested it granted Trump a form of immunity that paved the way for the sentencing delay.

Norm Eisen and Michael Podhorzer from the Defend Democracy Project expressed that Trump’s motive for seeking a delay was solely to evade accountability for his actions against the American public.

On social media, Trump vehemently defended himself, claiming he did “NOTHING WRONG” and asserting that the case should be “rightfully terminated.” The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who initiated the case against Trump, stated it remains prepared for the new sentencing date set by the court.

Source: source names