Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Trump is scheduled to be sentenced in the case on 18 September. Alamy Stock Photo

Trump asks judge to delay sentencing in hush money case until after US election

Trump is scheduled to be sentenced in the case on 18 September.

DONALD TRUMP HAS asked the judge in his New York hush money criminal case to delay his sentencing until after the US presidential election in November.

In a letter made public today, a lawyer for the former president and current Republican nominee suggested that sentencing Trump as scheduled on 18 September – about seven weeks before Election Day – would amount to election interference.

It comes after Judge Juan Merchan rejected Trump’s third bid to remove him from the case.

On 16 September, the judge will consider a separate request by Trump’s lawyers to overturn the verdict and dismiss the case following a Supreme Court ruling in July on presidential immunity.

Depending on the outcome of that hearing, Merchan has scheduled Trump’s sentencing for 18 September.

In the letter, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche wrote that a delay would also allow Trump time to weigh next steps.

“There is no basis for continuing to rush,” Blanche wrote.

He reiterated the defence argument that the judge has a conflict of interest because his daughter works as a Democratic political consultant, including for Kamala Harris when she sought the 2020 presidential nomination.

Harris is now running against Trump.

By adjourning the sentencing until after that election, “the Court would reduce, even if not eliminate, issues regarding the integrity of any future proceedings,” Blanche wrote.

Merchan, who has said he is confident in his ability to remain fair and impartial, did not immediately rule on the delay request.

A message seeking comment was left with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted Trump’s case.

A jury convicted Trump in May of 34 felonies for falsifying business records to hide a payment meant to silence porn star Stormy Daniels about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with him. 

Prosecutors cast the payout as part of a Trump-driven effort to keep voters from hearing salacious stories about him during his first campaign.

Trump says all the stories were false, the business records were not and the case was a political manoeuvre meant to damage his current campaign.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is a Democrat.

Trump’s defence argued that the payments were indeed for legal work and so were correctly categorised.

Falsifying business records is punishable by up to four years behind bars. Other potential sentences include probation, a fine or a conditional discharge which would require Trump to stay out of trouble to avoid additional punishment.

Trump is the first ex-president convicted of a crime. He has pledged to appeal over the decision, but that cannot happen until he is sentenced.

In a previous letter, Merchan set 18 September for “the imposition of sentence or other proceedings as appropriate”.

Blanche argued in his letter seeking a delay that the quick turnaround from the scheduled immunity ruling on 16 September to sentencing two days later is unfair to Trump.

To prepare for sentencing, Blanche argued, prosecutors will be submitting their punishment recommendation while Judge Merchan is still weighing whether to dismiss the case on immunity grounds.

If Merchan rules against Trump on the dismissal request, he will need “adequate time to assess and pursue state and federal appellate options,” Blanche said.

The Supreme Court’s immunity decision reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump’s lawyers argue that in light of the ruling, jurors in the hush money case should not have heard such evidence as former White House staffers describing how the then-president reacted to news coverage of the Daniels deal.

With reporting from Press Association

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds