For the second time, Donald Trump's sentencing has been postponed, pushing it back to Nov. 26, just after the U.S. presidential election.
The delay has sparked mixed reactions, with some praising the effort to avoid election interference, while others express concerns about the timing and its potential impact on the judicial process, as Newsweek reports.
In May, Trump was convicted by a jury on 34 felony counts tied to a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential campaign. His sentencing was initially scheduled for July 11 but was later moved to Sept. 18. On Friday, Judge Juan Merchan issued a second delay, citing concerns about the appearance of political interference with the presidential race.
Merchan explained that his decision to move the sentencing to after the election aimed to avoid any potential concerns that the case could influence or be influenced by the upcoming election. The sentencing is now set for Nov. 26. This is the second delay in this case, further complicating the intersection of Trump's legal battles and his presidential campaign.
Not everyone agrees with Merchan's reasoning. Norman Eisen, a legal analyst for CNN, has criticized the delay as a politically motivated decision. He suggested that Trump has been receiving special treatment and referenced another judge, Tanya Chutkan, overseeing a federal election obstruction case involving Trump, who declared that election timing should not interfere with legal proceedings.
On the other hand, Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, believes the delay will make it easier to sentence Trump if he is no longer an active candidate for office. He stated that it would be simpler for Judge Merchan to hand down a decision once Trump is out of the political spotlight.
Andrew Weissmann, a legal expert with MSNBC, highlighted the potential legal pitfalls of the postponement. He noted that by delaying the sentencing, the Supreme Court is kept from intervening before the election. Weissmann indicated that while some see this delay as a win for Trump, the decision could pose problems for him as the guilty verdict remains in place without being affected by the election process.
Weissmann also emphasized that the verdict, which stems from Trump's conviction on falsifying business records related to the hush money payment, is still very much alive despite the delay.
Trump's legal team is set to argue a motion seeking the dismissal of the verdict based on presidential immunity. This defense strategy was bolstered by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in July, which Trump's lawyers claim provides him immunity due to his status as a former president.
Trump reacted publicly to Judge Merchan's decision, expressing his disapproval of the entire matter on Truth Social, calling the case a "witch hunt" and a "political attack." Trump reiterated his belief that the charges were motivated by his political opponents and designed to interfere with his 2024 campaign. He also expressed appreciation for Merchan's use of the phrase "if necessary" in the decision about the new sentencing date, implying that Trump hopes the case could be dismissed entirely before the need for sentencing arises.
Former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance noted that if Merchan had not delayed the sentencing, another court likely would have done so. Vance argued that forcing Trump to appear in court just before Thanksgiving would prevent further delays, ensuring that no additional arguments for postponement could be raised. Meanwhile, MSNBC legal analyst Katie Phang attributed much of the delay to the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity. Phang has been critical of the ruling, linking it to the broader impact on the case timeline and the broader implications of future Supreme Court appointments, which could be influenced by the results of the 2024 election.
As the November 2024 sentencing date looms, debate continues over whether delaying the process is a strategic advantage for Trump or a hurdle he will have to overcome later. Critics of the delay, such as Norman Eisen, maintain that no one should receive special treatment in the legal system, regardless of their political status.
Ultimately, the postponement has raised questions about the intersection of politics and the legal system in high-profile cases like this one. As Trump continues his campaign for the 2024 presidency, his legal battles remain a key factor in shaping public opinion.
