Search
Close this search box.
#World News

Trump Sentencing in Hush-Money Case Delayed Until September

Trump sentencing in hush-money case delayed until September

A New York judge has postponed Donald Trump’s sentencing until September, following a request from his legal team to challenge his conviction in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling. Initially set for July 11, the sentencing for Trump’s involvement in a hush-money case was delayed after the Supreme Court granted former presidents immunity for certain “official” acts during their tenure.

Justice Juan Merchan indicated on Tuesday that he will decide on the motions by September 6. Should sentencing be necessary, it will then proceed on September 18. In May, a New York jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records, marking him as the first former president convicted of a felony. Prosecutors argued that Trump had reimbursed his lawyer, Michael Cohen, for payments made to an adult film star who claimed an affair, disguising them as legal expenses on the eve of the 2016 election.

Trump responded on Truth Social, claiming the delay as “TOTAL EXONERATION!” and an end to “witch hunts against me.” However, the decision merely halts proceedings until the judge’s ruling is made.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which granted immunity for “official acts,” was central to Trump’s legal team’s bid to overturn his conviction. They argued that events and evidence crucial to the case occurred during Trump’s presidency. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office countered that this argument lacked merit, while seeking a response deadline of July 24.

Legal experts opined that Trump faces an uphill battle in proving his immunity defense, particularly in the New York case, as the actions in question appear to relate to unofficial conduct rather than official presidential duties. The case revolves around payments made to Stormy Daniels, facilitated by Cohen at Trump’s direction, which were subsequently reimbursed and falsely categorized as legal expenses.

Philip Bobbitt, a constitutional law scholar, noted the challenge of categorizing such behavior as “official” presidential acts.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *