Trump’s Lawyers Ask Court To Delay Sentencing in Hush Money Case

On Monday, President-elect Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a New York appeals court to reverse a judge’s ruling that would schedule Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case on Friday. They also said they would appeal Judge Juan Merchan’s decision not to dismiss the case on the grounds of presidential immunity.

If the sentencing is delayed beyond January 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration, he would be immune from the criminal proceedings.

The attorneys asked Merchan to inform them by Monday afternoon whether he would “allow sufficient time for President Trump to seek an emergency appellate review.” Merchan acknowledged that if the sentencing were postponed beyond the inauguration, sentencing after he leaves office in 2029 “may become the only viable option.” He said he intended to sentence Trump to an “unconditional discharge,” which would entail closing the case without jail time, a fine, or probation.

“Today, President Trump’s legal team moved to stop the unlawful sentencing in the Manhattan D.A.’s Witch Hunt,” Trump spokesman Steven Cheung stated. “The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the state constitution of New York, and other established legal precedent mandate that this meritless hoax be immediately dismissed.”

JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN ’25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25

Judge Merchan ruled last week that Trump’s conviction in the case in which his former attorney, Michael Cohen, made a payment of $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election, should not be thrown out of court because he had been elected president.

“The Constitution dictates that only a President, after taking the oath of office, has the authority of the Chief Executive, a President-elect does not. Accordingly, a President-elect is not permitted to avail himself of the protections afforded to the individual occupying that Office. … Binding precedent does not provide that an individual, upon becoming President, can retroactively dismiss or vacate prior criminal acts nor does it grant blanket Presidential-elect immunity,” Merchan wrote.

“Any claim Defendant may have that circumstances have changed as a result of Defendant’s victory in the Presidential election, while convenient, is disingenuous,” he continued. “Defendant has always pronounced, since the inception of this case, confidence and indeed the expectation that he would prevail in the 2024 Election — confidence that has proven well-founded. That he would become the ‘President-elect’ and be required to assume all the responsibilities that come with the transition were entirely anticipated. Thus, it was fair for this Court to trust that his request to adjourn sentencing until after the election carried with it the implied consent that he would face sentence during the window between the election and the taking of the oath of office.”

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley slammed Merchan’s decisions against Trump, saying they were the “final cathartic act for lawfare warriors.”