The Manhattan district attorney’s office has indicated that it will not oppose a potential delay in former President Donald Trump’s sentencing, which is currently scheduled for September 18th, in his hush money criminal case. This development comes after Trump requested that his sentencing be postponed until after the November presidential election. Trump’s legal team has threatened to appeal if the judge does not overturn the guilty verdict in light of a pending Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.
In a letter made public on Monday, prosecutors responded to Trump’s delay request, arguing that many of his claims lacked merit. However, they acknowledged that there might be valid reasons to delay sentencing, particularly to allow time for orderly appellate litigation or to avoid the disruption of a last-minute stay. Matthew Colangelo, a state lawyer, expressed this in the filing, noting that the final decision rests with the judge.
Prosecutors also raised concerns about the significant public safety and logistical measures required for Trump’s court appearances. They warned that these efforts could be wasted if Trump’s sentencing were to be delayed due to appeals filed at the eleventh hour.
Judge Juan Merchan has stated that he will rule on the immunity issue by September 16th, just two days before Trump’s scheduled sentencing. This tight timeline could lead to a flurry of last-minute legal actions, potentially delaying the sentencing further.
Folks, this is a big deal and something I have been paying close attention to.
It’s also possibly terrible news for Kamala.
One thing that Bragg may be doing is separating himself from whatever Judge Merchan has planned.
With Bragg filing a motion saying he doesn’t oppose delaying sentencing all the pressure is now on Merchan.
Trump’s legal team has been bolstered by a recent Supreme Court ruling that suggests former presidents may have immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office. Trump’s attorneys argue that some evidence presented in his trial, including testimony from White House aides and his tweets while in office, should be excluded based on this ruling. They claim that the inclusion of this evidence tainted the jury’s verdict, which found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made during his 2016 campaign.
While prosecutors have pushed back against Trump’s arguments, insisting that the evidence in question is not protected by the Supreme Court’s ruling, they did not oppose the request to delay sentencing. This leaves open the possibility that Trump’s sentencing could be postponed, potentially pushing it further into the election season or even beyond the November election.
