A New York judge decided on Tuesday that, following Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Donald Trump’s sentencing for his company fraud conviction will not take place until September.
The former president’s sentencing has been postponed until the summer, so he will probably avoid any real punishment for his felony conviction. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden’s disastrous performance in the debate has given Trump an advantage in the election and Democrats are debating whether to replace their nominee.
On July 11, Trump was supposed to get his sentencing. The ex-president will now be punished on September 18, according to Judge Juan Merchan, “if such is still necessary.”
This news highlights how far-reaching Monday’s decision by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court—that presidents have unlimited immunity for “core” presidential duties—could be.
This ruling casts doubt on special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump on allegations of election subversion, making a trial prior to the November election highly unlikely. The verdict may have repercussions for Trump’s indictments related to sensitive information and election meddling proceedings in Georgia.
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on all 34 charges of falsifying company records in his hush money criminal trial in May, making him the first sitting US president to get a felony conviction.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for basic official acts, Trump’s legal team sent a letter on Monday requesting to contest the conviction of the previous president.
On Tuesday, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office concurred that the sentencing ought to be postponed.
Despite our disapproval of the defendant’s claims, we will not be opposing his motions for leave to file and purported adjournment of sentencing until they are decided. In a letter sent on Tuesday, the district attorney formally requested a deadline of July 24, 2024, two weeks following the defendant’s deadline, in order to submit and serve a response.
According to the ex-president’s legal team, the decision backs their contention that Trump’s “official acts” evidence presented by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg should not have been admitted into evidence during the trial, leading them to demand the reversal of the jury’s guilty finding.
The hush money case is “absolutely” affected by the high court’s decision, according to Will Scharf, Trump’s attorney in the immunity case, who spoke to AWN on Monday night.
“The Supreme Court made it very clear that evidence of acts that are presumed to be immune from prosecution—acts that fall within the outer perimeter of the president’s official responsibilities—could not be used to try essentially private acts,” he stated on “The Source.”
The legal team representing Trump cited various pieces of evidence pertaining to his presidency in their Monday letter. These included statements made by former White House communications director Hope Hicks, tweets written by Trump while in office, and phone records pertaining to Trump during his presidency.
The Trump administration should never have allowed this proof of official activities to be presented to the jury. According to Trump’s legal team, the president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” which aligns with their arguments presented both before and during the trial.
“The verdicts in this case violate the presidential immunity doctrine and create grave risks of ‘an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself,'” they warned.
