President Trump is asking the judge who presides over his New York criminal hush-money case, Juan Merchan, to postpone his sentencing scheduled for mid September until after the presidential election. 

“By adjourning the sentencing until after that election—which is of paramount importance to the entire Nation,” Trump’s defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote in a letter sent to the judge on Wednesday, “the Court would reduce, even if not eliminate, issues regarding the integrity of any future proceedings.” 

The attorneys insisted that there was “no basis for continuing to rush,” and that the September 18 sentencing date, about seven weeks before Election Day, aids “naked election-interference objectives.” Especially since, “Sentencing is currently scheduled to occur after the commencement of early voting in the Presidential election.” 

At a press conference on Thursday afternoon, Trump denounced the various prosecutions against him. “They want to put me in prison,” he said repeatedly, comparing the four criminal cases brought against him as reminiscent of legal proceedings in a “third world country”.

He added that the planned sentencing in the hush-money case was “interference with a presidential election” and pointed out that, as president, he declined, for purposes of national unity, to have Hillary Clinton, “the wife of a president,” imprisoned for the various crimes of which she was accused involving her use of email while secretary of state. 

On May 30, Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsification of business records in an alleged scheme to interfere with the 2016 election. The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who brought the charges against Trump, had accused the former president of disguising monthly payments he made to his former lawyer Michael Cohen as legal fees, when in reality they were, according to Mr. Bragg, reimbursements for a $130,000 hush-money payment Cohen made to the porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. The payment was made two weeks before the 2016 presidential election, the district attorney alleges, to cover up her allegation of a one-time sexual encounter she claims to have had with Trump at a celebrity golf tournament at Lake Tahoe in 2006. Trump denies all charges and says he never had sex with Ms. Clifford.

“I didn’t have sex with a porn star,” he said at his June 27 debate with President Biden.

Under New York law, the class “E” felonies Trump faces are punishable by up to four years in prison per offense and-or a fine of up to $5,000, again per offense. As Trump has been found guilty on 34 counts, he could theoretically face up to $170,000 in fines and 136 years in prison. Prior to the verdict, the Sun spoke to several legal experts, and they all found that it is highly unlikely for a first time offender to receive the maximum sentence for these kinds of offenses, or any prison time at all. Other potential sentences include probation, house arrest, a fine or a conditional discharge, whereby Trump would not be sentenced for the offenses unless he commits a further offense within a stated period of time. 

Regardless of precedent, or Trump’s legal status as a first-time offender, the case concerns a defendant who is deeply unpopular in New York. Two civil cases against Trump, both adjudicated in Manhattan, went badly for the 45th president.  

As regards Trump’s hush-money conviction. the judge will decide the scope of punishment based on several factors, one of them being a sentencing recommendation filed by the prosecution.  In their letter, the defense argued that the district attorney’s office should not be able to make punishment suggestions until the judge has decided whether or not the entire case, the verdict and the indictment should be thrown out based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision on presidential immunity.  

“The requested adjournment would prevent DANY (the district attorney) from filing a sentencing submission while the Court is still considering the Presidential immunity motion.” The attorneys wrote. 

On July 1, the Supreme Court, in a major victory for Trump, ruled that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for official acts, meaning they cannot be prosecuted for actions they undertook in service of their duties as president. Hours after the landmark decision was published, Trump’s attorneys challenged the verdict and the indictment in the New York criminal case, arguing that parts of the evidence the prosecution submitted, such as tweets and phone calls Trump received and made while he was the sitting president, and trial testimony given by staff members of his administration, should be considered official acts and thus be legally void in the criminal case. 

The judge postponed the sentencing, which was originally scheduled for July 11, to September 18 to review the matter and said he would reach a decision by September 16. 

Trump’s attorneys criticized “the current schedule” as “highly expedited”, leaving “only a single day between a decision on first-impression Presidential immunity issues and an unprecedented and unwarranted sentencing,” they wrote on Wednesday. 

If the judge finds that the Supreme Court ruling is inconsequential for Trump’s hush-money case, that his actions were in fact unofficial and unrelated to his presidential duties, the defense would have only one day to launch an appeal, which, they argue, offers little time “to assess and pursue state and federal appellate options.”

“A single business day,” the attorneys lamented, “is an unreasonably short period of time for President Trump to seek to vindicate these rights, if he must, in order to avoid the ‘prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself’ in future generations.” 

Judge Merchan has ruled against Trump with consistency throughout the case’s legal proceedings, and many legal and political observers do not expect him to throw out the case based on the Nine’s ruling.

Trump has appealed almost all of Judge Merchan’s decisions. In the week before the historic trial began on April 15, his lawyers asked the mid-level appeals court, the Appellate Division First Judicial Department, almost every day to delay the trial. They argued for a change of venue because Manhattan, where Trump received less than 15 percent of the vote in 2020, provided an “overwhelmingly biased jury pool.” Then they argued that a gag order, imposed on Trump by the judge, was unconstitutional, and that the judge himself was biased and should recuse himself. The appeals were denied. 

Trump said in his Thursday afternoon press conference that Judge Merchan imposed the gag order so the 45th president would be prevented from saying things “so devastating and so horrible for him.”

He added that, “I can’t give you an answer because if they give the answer they’ll put you in jail.” 

As the Sun reported, the judge ruled on Wednesday, for a third time, that he will not recuse himself from this case, refuting Trump’s claim that his impartiality is tainted due to the political work of his adult daughter, Loren Merchan. 

Ms. Merchan is a political consultant at the digital agency, Authentic,  and has done campaign work for fervent Trump foes such as Representative Adam Schiff and the vice president and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris. 

Trump has repeatedly argued that Ms. Merchan’s work “creates an actual or perceived conflict of interest.” Her father has repeatedly rejected the accusation. New York’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics found that a judge’s daughter’s work does not impact the judge’s ability to rule impartially. “A judge’s relatives remain free to engage in their own bona fide independent political activities,” the committee said. 

On Wednesday, Trump’s attorneys raised the issue again, writing that “Michael Nellis, a business partner of Your Honor’s daughter at Authentic Campaigns (and Authentic’s founder), posted on social media about, inter alia, making maximum donations to the Harris campaign and using his clout with that campaign to get Walz to ‘talk on our White Dudes for Harris call last week.’”

On his X, formaller Twitter, feed, Mr. Nellis boasts about donating money to Ms. Harris’ campaign. “As promised, here’s receipt of my $6,600 contribution to @KamalaHarris he posted on August 2.  

Mr. Nellis also advocates, as the defense mentioned in its filing, for an initiative he calls White Dudes for Harris. The group’s X account was suspended and then reinstated by X owner Elon Musk, after they raised $4 million dollars for Ms. Harris’ campaign. 

There is no question that Mr. Nellis and his firm are staunch supporters of the Harris-Walz campaign. The question is how that relates to the judge and his rulings in Trump’s hush-money case. 

So far, Trump has not been able to convince an appeals court that the political work of a judge’s adult daughter impacts his impartiality.          

Judge Merchan has yet to respond to Trump’s premotion letter.