Lawyers for former President Trump are seeking to postpone the sentencing hearing in New York v. Trump until after the November presidential election, citing “blatant attempts to interfere in the election.”
After a six-week trial that stemmed from an investigation by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Trump was convicted of all charges of first-degree falsifying business records in an unprecedented criminal trial.
Trump moved to overturn the convictions in the Manhattan cases after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have effective immunity for acts committed while in office.
Trump’s lawsuit seeking to lift remaining New York state censorship restrictions dismissed
From left: Judge Juan Marchan, former President Trump and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. (Getty Images, AP Images)
Sentencing was originally scheduled for July 11th – just days before the Republican National Convention, where he was scheduled to be formally nominated as the GOP’s 2024 presidential candidate – but Judge Juan Marchan agreed to postpone the sentencing until September 18th.
Trump’s lawyer, Todd Branche, moved Thursday to further postpone the sentencing hearing.
“The Supreme Court should postpone ruling in this case until after the 2024 presidential election, but a delay should not be necessary because the jury verdict must be set aside and vacated based on presidential immunity,” Blanch wrote to Marchant.
Branche argued that the lawsuit “should be dismissed,” pointing to the fact that Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, “falsely mentioned the lawsuit in public speeches.”
Blanche also noted that Marchand’s daughter works for Authentic Campaigns, which represents top Democratic candidates.
Trump hails Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling as ‘a major victory for the Constitution and democracy’
“The ruling is scheduled for after early voting begins in the presidential election,” Blanche wrote. “By postponing the ruling until after an election that matters most to the entire country, including tens of millions of people who disagree with Authentic, its executives, and its customers, the Court will mitigate, if not entirely eliminate, questions about the fairness of future litigation.”
Former President Trump arrived to speak at a campaign rally in Bozeman, Montana on Friday, August 9. (AP/Rick Bowmer)
Blanche stressed there is no need to “rush.”
“Apart from the blatant purpose of election interference, there is no legitimate reason for the Supreme Court to leave the current sentencing date in place,” Blanche wrote. “There is no basis for continuing the rush.”
New York v. Trump: Marchan postpones sentencing hearing until September
“We therefore respectfully request that any sentencing, if necessary, be postponed until after the presidential elections,” he added.
In arguing for not prosecuting, Ms. Blanche argued that Mr. Bragg presented evidence of his official duties during the unprecedented six-week criminal trial, including official communications with White House officials Hope Hicks, Madeleine Westerhout and others.
Click here to get the FOX News app
The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that former presidents are effectively immune from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts. The Court found that Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts,” but left it to lower courts to decide where the line is between official and unofficial acts.
