Trump supporters may be doing a victory dance following Judge Juan Merchan’s decision to move sentencing back to September 18th from its July date. Still, a closer look reveals that this may be another desperate attempt to keep Trump out of the White House, based on the one “conviction” the prosecution has managed to “make stick.”
The new sentencing date effectively removes time for Trump to appeal the case since attorneys can’t file appeals before sentencing. For Democrats, the timing couldn’t be better. Former President Trump’s sentencing for criminal charges has been postponed until September 18 to allegedly allow Trump time to challenge his recent guilty verdict following a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. Merchan’s decision means Trump’s sentencing will not occur before the Republican National Convention, but it will now happen amid the general election campaign. This scheduling also coincides with the period shortly after the next presidential debate scheduled for September 10.
On September 6, before the sentencing hearing, Merchan will rule whether the entire case should be discarded. If, as expected, he rules it will not be thrown out, he can sentence Trump on the 18th. That means that Trump, with no way to file an appeal expediently, could be facing the general election from a jail cell.
The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have presumptive criminal immunity for official acts, providing Trump a significant legal win. This decision likely prevents any remaining charges from going to trial before the November election, where he hopes to regain the presidency and stop his legal cases. Additionally, the ruling strengthens Trump’s efforts to overturn his only criminal conviction.
Trump’s legal team argues that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg improperly included various official acts as evidence, such as Trump’s call records, social media posts, government ethics forms, and critical testimony from a trusted aide. Attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove informed the judge that this evidence of official acts should not have been presented to the jury based on the Supreme Court’s decision. They specifically reference social media posts made by Trump during his presidency, where he criticized Michael Cohen, the prosecutors’ main witness.
Chief Justice Roberts noted in the Supreme Court’s decision that most of a president’s public communications fall within his official duties but cautioned that there might be instances where a president speaks unofficially, such as when acting as a candidate or party leader.
Trump’s attorneys have until July 10 to argue to Judge Merchan that the trial outcome should be overturned. Prosecutors maintained that these arguments were “without merit” but did not oppose the delay. Cheryl Bader, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at Fordham University, noted that while the presumption set by the Supreme Court poses a challenge for prosecutors, it is not insurmountable.
Some of the testimony now in jeopardy include call records between Trump and Cohen while Trump was president, a 2018 government ethics form where Trump referenced the hush money arrangement, and testimony from former Trump adviser Hope Hicks. Jeffrey Cohen, a former federal prosecutor, noted that Hicks’s testimony could be significant if her conversations with Trump were in his official capacity and not generally accessible to the public. Hicks testified about her involvement during Trump’s 2016 campaign and a 2018 conversation where Trump indicated Cohen paid Daniels out of goodwill. Prosecutors highlighted Hicks’s testimony in their closing remarks, describing it as “devastating” against Trump. Cohen pointed out that the government’s reliance on Hicks’s testimony in their closing arguments would be crucial in assessing its importance to the conviction.
Bader stated that the immunity ruling likely won’t affect the verdict, as falsifying private business records to pay off a porn star doesn’t qualify as official presidential duties, even under the Supreme Court’s broad grant of immunity. However, Trump is not claiming immunity from the 34 counts of falsifying business records he faced. Instead, he focuses on the trial evidence used to prove those counts. He argues that the jury’s verdict should be dismissed because some of the evidence presented to jurors is now inadmissible under the Supreme Court’s new criteria.
As Trump’s other cases fall apart, the left has no other hope than to milk a “falsified documents” conviction for all its worth. While clerical errors are typically misdemeanors unworthy of jail time, there is little doubt that Merchan will play his part and see Trump behind bars. A jailed Trump would ultimately be defeated. By removing any hope that Trump would be free of jail or have successfully overturned the conviction before November’s election, Democrats have cemented their plan to install Biden yet again.
It may have taken some finagling to reach this point, but the Democrats’ lawfare strategy, now in the hands of rabidly liberal anti-Trump Judge Merchan, may still be successful.
