Donald Trump Asks Judge to Delay Sentencing in Bribery Case Until November Election

NEW YORK — Donald Trump has asked a judge in his criminal case to remain hushed in New York, asking for his sentencing to be delayed until after the presidential election in November.

IN letter made public on ThursdayLawyers for the former president and current Republican candidate have suggested that sentencing Trump as scheduled on September 18 — about seven weeks before Election Day — would amount to election interference.

Trump’s attorneys wrote that the delay will give Trump time to consider his next steps after the judge presiding over the case, Juan M. Merchan, who is scheduled to rule Sept. 16 on a defense motion to set aside the judgment and dismiss the case due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity.

“There is no basis for further urgency,” Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote.

Blanche and Bove sent the letter to Merchan on Wednesday after a judge denied the defense’s latest request to withdraw from the case.

» READ MORE: Live News: Kamala Harris, Joe Biden Set to End Joint Campaign; Harris Now Leads Trump in Pennsylvania, New Poll Finds

In the letter, Blanche and Bove repeated the defense argument that the judge has a conflict of interest because his daughter works as a Democratic political consultant, including for Kamala Harris when she was seeking the presidential nomination in 2020. Harris is currently running against Trump.

By postponing the verdict until after the election, the lawyers wrote, “the Court will reduce, if not eliminate, problems with the fairness of any future proceedings.”

Election Day is November 5, but many states are allowing voters to cast ballots early, with some planning to begin the process just days before or after Trump’s scheduled September 18 sentencing date.

Merchan, who has expressed confidence in his impartiality and fairness, did not immediately issue a decision on the delay request.

» READ MORE: Explaining the US Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and what it means for Trump’s ability to stand trial

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted Trump’s case, declined to comment.

Trump was convicted in May of falsifying his company’s records to conceal a 2016 deal in which he bribed porn actress Stormy Daniels to keep still about an alleged sexual encounter she had with him in 2006. Prosecutors portray the payout as part of Trump’s efforts to prevent voters from hearing juicy stories about him during his primary campaign.

Trump says all the stories were false, the business documents were not, and the case was a political maneuver to damage his current campaign. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is a Democrat.

Trump’s defense argued that the payments were indeed for legal work and were properly classified.

Falsifying business records is punishable by up to four years in prison. Other potential sentences include probation, a fine or parole, which would require Trump to stay out of trouble to avoid additional punishment. Trump is the first former president to be convicted of a crime.

Trump has promised to appeal the verdict, but he cannot do so until he is convicted.

In a previous letter, Merchan set a date of September 18 for “issuing judgment or initiating other appropriate proceedings.”

Blanche and Bove argued in their letter seeking a stay of sentencing that the quick change from the scheduled September 16 immunity ruling to the announcement of the verdict two days later was unfair to Trump.

To prepare for sentencing, attorneys said, prosecutors will present their sentencing recommendations while Merchan is still considering whether to dismiss the case on immunity grounds. If Merchan rules against Trump on a motion to dismiss, he would need “adequate time to evaluate and pursue state and federal appeal options,” they said.

The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling limits prosecution of former presidents for official actions and restricts prosecutors from pointing to official actions as evidence that the president’s unofficial actions were illegal. Trump’s lawyers argue that, under the ruling, the jury in his hush money case should not have heard evidence such as former White House aides describing the then-president’s reaction to media coverage of the Daniels deal.