In a significant boost to Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential bid, former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, along with former First Ladies Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton, are set to hit the campaign trail in the final weeks leading up to the election.
According to NBC News, these influential Democratic figures are preparing to lend their political clout to Harris' campaign following their energizing speeches at the Democratic National Convention last month.
The high-profile surrogates have reportedly offered their support to the Harris team, expressing eagerness to assist in any way deemed most beneficial. Their involvement is expected to help Harris reach key voter demographics and bolster her campaign efforts in crucial battleground states.
Former President Barack Obama is slated to headline a fundraiser for Harris in Los Angeles next Friday, with plans for larger campaign events in the coming month.
His strategy will focus on areas where he can significantly influence Democratic and undecided voters, particularly in states with key races.
Michelle Obama's role will center on encouraging voter registration and turnout for Harris. The former First Lady is said to be particularly energized by Harris' candidacy, more so than she would have been for President Biden had he remained on the ticket.
Eric Schultz, a senior Obama adviser, stated:
His strategy this fall will be driven by where he can move the needle with Democrats and persuadable voters, especially in states with key races.
Bill Clinton's campaign efforts are expected to target rural areas, with possible events in the Rust Belt and Georgia. The former President is described as eager to get on the campaign trail, with his involvement likely to begin in October.
Hillary Clinton plans to focus her campaign events on women and LGBTQ voters, with dates still under discussion. She is also expected to be a key messenger on reproductive freedom, which could be an effective strategy for reaching suburban women voters.
Both the Obamas and Clintons have been in frequent communication with Harris since she took over the top of the ticket. Hillary Clinton offered a debate strategy and perspective to the vice president ahead of her recent debate with former President Trump in Philadelphia.
President Biden will continue to travel to battleground states, touting what the White House views as the top Biden-Harris accomplishments. He is expected to hold more joint events with Harris in the final sprint to Election Day.
Other key surrogates for the Harris campaign include Democratic governors such as Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gavin Newsom of California, along with Senators Cory Booker and Laphonza Butler. The campaign is also working to engage digital surrogates and leverage the massive followings of online content creators.
In summary, the Harris campaign is receiving significant support from former Presidents Obama and Clinton, as well as former First Ladies Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton. These influential figures will focus on different voter demographics and regions to bolster Harris' campaign. President Biden will continue to campaign alongside Harris, while other Democratic leaders and digital influencers will also play crucial roles in the final stretch of the election.
Former first lady Melania Trump has broken her silence on the FBI raid at her Florida home.
In a video posted on social media, Mrs. Trump expressed her shock at the 2022 search, calling it an invasion of her privacy and a cautionary tale for Americans, as Just the News reports.
On Saturday, Melania Trump voiced her concern about the FBI’s August 2022 raid on Mar-a-Lago, the Florida estate she shares with her husband, former President Donald Trump. She explained how the search, which focused on recovering classified materials, left her stunned by the government's actions.
The FBI conducted the search after claims that the Trump administration had failed to turn over certain documents to the National Archives. This raid became one of the most high-profile investigations of Donald Trump’s post-presidency, adding to the already mounting legal challenges he faced.
In a video shared on X, the former first lady reflected on the raid, revealing her feelings about the federal government’s search of her personal space. Melania Trump’s tone was measured but firm, as she noted her disbelief that such an event could happen in the United States.
"I never imagined my privacy would be invaded by the government here in America," she remarked in the video. She went on to recount how federal agents rifled through her belongings during the search, which was part of a larger investigation into classified documents.
Melania Trump expressed that this event was not just a personal affront, but also served as a warning to the American public about the potential for government overreach. "This is not just my story, it serves as a warning to all Americans, a reminder that our freedom and rights must be respected,” she added.
The raid, which took place over a year ago, was part of a broader investigation into how classified materials were handled after Donald Trump left the White House. In June 2023, the former president was indicted for allegedly retaining classified documents and obstructing the federal government’s efforts to retrieve them.
Although Donald Trump was charged, the case faced hurdles. In July 2023, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case, a decision that temporarily relieved Trump of legal consequences. However, special counsel Jack Smith has since taken steps to have the case reinstated, and legal battles over the documents are far from over.
The search of Mar-a-Lago has been a focal point in the investigations into Trump’s handling of classified information, and the raid itself drew sharp criticism from Trump’s supporters, who have long claimed the investigation is politically motivated.
The video was not solely a critique of the FBI. At its conclusion, Melania Trump’s upcoming memoir, titled Melania, was promoted. The former first lady had announced earlier this month that the memoir would soon be released, and pre-orders are already available through her website. Her book is expected to cover her time in the White House and the years following, offering a deeper look into her perspective on both her public and private life. The timing of the memoir’s promotion with her statement on the FBI raid has drawn interest from her supporters and critics alike.
Melania Trump has largely stayed out of the public eye in recent years, but her decision to speak out now underscores the personal impact the FBI investigation has had on her. The video may also be an effort to generate additional attention for her forthcoming memoir.
The Mar-a-Lago raid remains a critical moment in the legal battles surrounding the former president, and Melania Trump’s comments have reignited discussion about the implications of the federal government’s actions. As special counsel Smith continues his pursuit of the case, it’s clear that the legal saga is poised to continue.
Former First Lady Michelle Obama will reportedly not be hitting the campaign trail on behalf of Vice President Kamala Harris this fall.
Despite her support for Harris at the Democratic National Convention, Mrs. Obama will focus on non-partisan voter outreach instead of campaigning for the vice president, as Breitbart reports, citing CNN.
In August, Michelle Obama gave a powerful speech during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, emphasizing the importance of voter registration and participation. While her remarks were seen as a significant boost for Harris, the former first lady has since decided against an active campaign role for the vice president as the fall election approaches.
CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere reported on Friday that Michelle Obama, while supportive of the Democratic Party’s nominee, will continue to prioritize her non-partisan work encouraging voter turnout.
Instead of rallying voters for Harris, Michelle Obama will direct her energy toward her voter registration initiative, which aims to increase voter participation across the board, regardless of political affiliation. Her efforts are seen as critical, given her high-profile status and the passion she brings to motivating voters.
Obama’s decision not to campaign actively for Harris is being viewed as a potential challenge for the vice president. Harris, who is seeking to sustain the momentum from her DNC appearance into the fall, may face a harder path without the popular former first lady by her side. Some observers believe other Democrats with future presidential aspirations may also be holding back from fully committing to Harris, likely eyeing the 2028 election if Harris were to lose or decide not to run again.
While Michelle Obama is stepping back from active campaigning, former President Barack Obama is expected to step forward. Barack Obama will reportedly take on a more visible role this fall, campaigning for the Democratic nominee in key battleground states.
Barack Obama’s participation will include appearing at rallies later in the fall and collaborating with online influencers to reach younger voters, a demographic crucial to Democratic victories. His office has already pre-recorded several videos that will be shared across social media platforms to encourage voter registration and turnout. On National Voter Registration Day, these efforts will target an estimated 30 million users, leveraging Barack Obama’s popularity and appeal to engage with younger generations.
As the campaign moves into its final months, Kamala Harris faces the challenge of maintaining enthusiasm among her supporters without the high-profile campaign involvement of Michelle Obama. The former first lady’s absence is seen by some as a strategic move, allowing her to stay out of partisan campaigning while focusing on broader voter engagement efforts.
Harris’s prospects in November are also viewed as a litmus test for the Democratic Party’s future. If Harris wins, she would likely be positioned for another run in 2028, delaying other Democratic hopefuls’ ambitions until 2032. If she loses, however, the race for 2028 could be wide open for a new generation of Democratic candidates.
Despite these challenges, Michelle Obama’s decision to remain in the voter outreach space rather than on the campaign trail is consistent with her focus on civic engagement. In her DNC speech, she made a passionate appeal to voters, urging them to take the election seriously.
At the convention, Michelle Obama warned that there was “no time for foolishness” and that every vote could be decisive in the upcoming election. She called on voters to make sure everyone they know is registered and ready to cast their ballot. "Our fate is in our hands," she said, making it clear that the power of democracy rests with those who show up on Election Day. Her speech, although not partisan, underscored the urgency of the political moment, emphasizing that the stakes in the election were high, with the future direction of the country at risk.
As the election draws nearer, both Barack and Michelle Obama will be involved in shaping the voter landscape, albeit in different ways. While Michelle focuses on non-partisan outreach, Barack Obama will be central to rallying the Democratic base in the final weeks of the campaign.
Former President Donald Trump has reignited the contentious healthcare debate by calling for the replacement of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.
As reported by NBC News, this move has reopened a political fight that many Republicans had hoped to put behind them.
During the September 11 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump criticized the current state of healthcare in the United States, stating that Obamacare was "lousy" and "not very good today." He expressed his intention to replace the ACA with a better system, although he did not provide specific details of his plan.
Trump's comments have caught many by surprise, given that Republicans have been trying to distance themselves from efforts to repeal the ACA. The former president indicated that he has "concepts of a plan" and promised to release "concepts and options" in the near future.
This move has potentially significant political implications. The Harris campaign is reportedly exploring ways to use Trump's remarks against him, considering paid ads and healthcare-focused events to highlight the issue.
David Plouffe, a senior adviser to the Harris campaign, criticized Trump's approach, stating:
He promised us a health care plan back in 2015. A long time ago. Never came. Last night, he said he had the concepts of the plan. But he still wants to basically throw tens of millions of people off health care. People in swing states are going to hear about that very soon.
The timing of Trump's comments is particularly noteworthy, as the Biden administration recently announced that ACA enrollment has reached an all-time high.
In 2024, 20.8 million Americans signed up for coverage through the ACA marketplace, with approximately 50 million Americans having been covered through ACA private marketplaces since 2014.
Vice President Harris defended the ACA during the debate, emphasizing its popular provisions:
You have no plan. And what the Affordable Care Act has done is eliminate the ability of insurance companies to deny people with pre-existing conditions. I don't have to tell the people watching tonight. You remember what that was like? Remember when an insurance company could deny if a child had asthma, if someone was a breast cancer survivor, if a grandparent had diabetes? And, thankfully, as I've been vice president, we over the last four years have strengthened the Affordable Care Act.
The renewed focus on healthcare has put some Republican senators in a difficult position. While acknowledging issues with the current system, they seem reluctant to fully embrace Trump's call for replacement.
Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who is up for re-election, expressed a nuanced view on the matter. He acknowledged problems with the ACA but stopped short of calling for its repeal. Senator Scott stated: "You want to have a safety net so people can get health care. ... So the way I would look at it is, I wouldn't talk about what we should do with the ACA. I say: How are we going to fix the system?"
Trump's call to replace Obamacare has reignited a long-standing debate over healthcare in the United States. This move comes at a time when ACA enrollment is at an all-time high, with 20.8 million Americans signed up in 2024.
The Harris campaign is exploring ways to use Trump's comments against him, while some Republican senators express reluctance to revisit the ACA repeal fight. As the 2024 election approaches, healthcare policy is likely to remain a central and contentious issue.
A grieving father in Ohio has spoken out against the politicization of his son's death by prominent Republican figures, including former President Donald Trump and Senator JD Vance. The incident, which involved a fatal car crash caused by a Haitian immigrant, has become a focal point in the ongoing debate over immigration policies.
According to India Today, Nathan Clark, the father of 11-year-old Aiden, who lost his life in the accident, addressed a Springfield City Commission meeting to express his dismay at the exploitation of his family's tragedy for political gain.
The accident occurred over a year ago when a minivan driven by Hermanio Joseph, a 35-year-old Haitian national, collided with a school bus in Springfield, Ohio. The crash resulted in the death of Aiden Clark, who was ejected from the bus as it veered off the road and overturned. Joseph was subsequently convicted of involuntary manslaughter and faces up to nine years in prison.
During the recent presidential debate, Donald Trump referenced Springfield, Ohio, as an example to criticize immigration policies. He alleged that immigrants were "taking over towns" and "violently occupying buildings," attributing these issues to the policies of the Biden-Harris administration.
Trump claimed that these immigrants were "destroying our country" and characterized them as "dangerous and at the highest level of criminality."
Senator JD Vance, a political ally of Trump, also brought national attention to Springfield's demographic changes. Vance labeled these changes as harmful consequences of Biden's border policies despite the fact that the Haitian immigrants in question have legal status and work permits.
Vance went further, alleging that "a Haitian migrant murdered a child," a statement that the Clark family has vehemently disputed.
The Trump campaign escalated the issue by posting about Aiden on social media, featuring his picture alongside that of Hermanio Joseph. This action, along with the comments made by Trump and Vance, has stoked fears and amplified false narratives about immigration in the area.
Nathan Clark, standing beside his wife Danielle at the Springfield City Commission meeting, delivered an emotional appeal against the use of his son's death for political purposes. Clark expressed his frustration and heartbreak over the manipulation of the tragedy, stating:
I wish my son had been killed by a 60-year-old white man.
Clark emphasized that this sentiment stemmed from his desire to spare his family from the hate-filled rhetoric that surrounded the incident. He clarified that his son was not murdered but "accidentally killed by an immigrant from Haiti."
The grieving father specifically criticized four politicians, including Trump and Vance, describing them as "morally bankrupt" for using his son's name to further their political agendas. Clark made a clear demand:
They are not allowed, nor have they ever been allowed to mention Aiden Clark from Springfield, Ohio.
The tragic death of Aiden Clark has become a contentious issue in the ongoing debate over immigration policies in the United States. Donald Trump and JD Vance have used the incident to criticize current immigration practices, linking it to broader claims about public safety.
However, Nathan Clark, Aiden's father, has publicly condemned the politicization of his son's death, calling for an end to the exploitation of this personal tragedy for political gain. The incident highlights the complex intersection of personal grief, political rhetoric, and the national conversation on immigration.
A conservative nonprofit organization has unveiled a significant advertising campaign targeting Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, over their stance on China.
According to Fox News, the Protecting America Initiative plans to air a six-figure television ad during the upcoming presidential debate between Harris and former President Donald Trump.
The advertisement, set to run in seven key battleground states, accuses the Harris-Walz campaign of being soft on China and potentially compromising American interests. The Protecting America Initiative, led by former Trump administration official Richard Grenell and ex-Congressman Lee Zeldin, aims to raise awareness about what they perceive as threats from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The ad campaign takes aim at several aspects of the Harris-Walz record on China. It claims that the current administration has been too lenient in its approach to Beijing, potentially jeopardizing American economic interests.
One of the main points of contention is a new rule implemented by the Biden-Harris administration that the group argues could give China undue influence over the U.S. auto industry. The ad notes that Harris cast a tiebreaking vote in favor of this policy, framing it as a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for American manufacturing.
The Protecting America Initiative also raises concerns about Tim Walz, Harris's running mate. The ad mentions an ongoing federal investigation into Walz's alleged "close ties" to the Chinese Communist Party, suggesting that this connection could pose a national security risk if the ticket were to win the election.
The decision to air the advertisement during the presidential debate is a strategic move designed to maximize its impact. By targeting viewers in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the group aims to influence voters in states that could be crucial in determining the outcome of the election.
The timing of the ad release, coinciding with the high-profile debate between Harris and Trump, ensures that it will reach a large and politically engaged audience. This approach reflects the Protecting America Initiative's goal of making China policy a central issue in the upcoming election.
The ad campaign comes amid increased congressional scrutiny of Tim Walz's relationships with Chinese entities. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has launched an investigation into what he describes as Walz's "longstanding connections" to CCP-affiliated organizations and officials.
Comer's investigation seeks to uncover information about the Chinese entities and officials with whom Walz has engaged and partnered. The congressman has expressed concern that these connections could make Walz susceptible to the CCP's strategy of "elite capture," which aims to influence American decision-makers for the benefit of the Chinese regime.
The Protecting America Initiative's ad campaign highlights these concerns, suggesting that Walz's past interactions with China could have implications for national security if he were to become vice president.
The advertisement concludes with a call to action, urging viewers to "fight back" against what it perceives as the Harris-Walz campaign's accommodating stance toward China. The group emphasizes the need to protect American manufacturing, food supply, and borders from potential Chinese influence. By framing the issue in terms of national security and economic independence, the Protecting America Initiative seeks to galvanize public opinion and make China policy a key consideration for voters in the upcoming election.
The six-figure ad campaign targeting the Harris-Walz ticket on China policy is set to air during the presidential debate between Harris and Trump. Focusing on seven battleground states, the Protecting America Initiative aims to highlight concerns about the current administration's approach to China, including a controversial auto industry rule and an investigation into Tim Walz's alleged ties to the CCP. This effort reflects broader attempts to make China policy a central issue in the election, as evidenced by ongoing congressional scrutiny of Walz's connections to Chinese entities.
President Joe Biden has signed just two executive orders since announcing his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, a move that leaves him trailing his predecessors.
According to Fox News, Biden’s recent orders pertain to labor agreements and resolving a dispute involving New Jersey Transit Rail.
Biden's activities come as he endorses Vice President Kamala Harris for the upcoming election. His limited executive actions starkly contrast with the final-year efforts of former presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama, who each signed multiple orders during corresponding times in their presidencies.
On July 25, Biden signed an executive order to establish an emergency board to investigate a labor dispute with New Jersey Transit Rail Operations. This decision followed his announcement on July 21 that he would not seek re-election. The move aimed to address ongoing issues with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.
The second executive order, labeled the "Good Jobs" order, was signed in September during a visit to Michigan. Biden emphasized the importance of project labor agreements for federal construction projects. His presence in Michigan highlighted his support for labor unions and his focus on jobs.
Former President Trump, during August 2020, signed seven executive orders addressing various issues, including the COVID-19 pandemic and national security threats. Similarly, Obama signed five orders in August 2016, focusing on succession orders within federal agencies and amendments to previous executive mandates.
Biden's limited use of executive power contrasts sharply with the actions of his predecessors. Trump's executive orders from August 2020 addressed a range of issues, from public health to national security concerns regarding technology and social media platforms like TikTok and WeChat.
Obama’s efforts in August 2016 included refining federal agency protocols and expanding advisory councils. These actions underscored the proactive measures taken by past presidents during their final months in office.
Despite the limited number of executive orders, Biden's recent actions reflect his continued commitment to addressing specific labor-related concerns. His focus appears to remain on supporting economic opportunities and labor agreements.
Biden’s approach has sparked commentary from various public figures. Elon Musk, owner of the social media platform X, noted Biden's perceived lack of governance since his announcement to step down. This perception has fueled discussions about the administration's current priorities and future directions.
Meanwhile, Trump, the current Republican nominee, continues to propose new executive orders, promising actions aimed at curbing federal employee involvement in speech limitation. His remarks at a Wisconsin rally emphasized his ongoing influence and political strategies.
Fox News reached out to the White House for comments on Biden's executive order record compared to Trump and Obama, but no response was received at the time of reporting. The discussion around executive actions remains a focal point as the political landscape evolves.
President Biden's signing of only two executive orders since withdrawing from the 2024 race contrasts with the more active final months of his predecessors. His orders focus on labor agreements and resolving a New Jersey Transit dispute. Former presidents Trump and Obama both issued more orders during similar periods, addressing diverse national issues. Public commentary has highlighted differing perceptions of Biden's governance amid ongoing political developments.
Former President Donald Trump momentarily halted his speech during a rally in Mosinee, Wisconsin, on Saturday after a supporter collapsed.
According to RSBN, Trump paused to acknowledge the medical professionals assisting the individual, demonstrating his concern for attendees.
The incident occurred during Trump's address to a large crowd gathered in Mosinee. As reported by RSBN, Trump interrupted his remarks to thank the doctors for their swift response to the medical emergency. This action highlighted the former president's attentiveness to his supporters' well-being during campaign events.
Trump's immediate reaction to the situation showcased his awareness of the crowd's needs. He briefly suspended his speech to ensure the collapsed individual received proper care and to commend the medical team for their efforts.
The former president's words reflected his concern for the supporter's health and his appreciation for the medical staff's quick action. His pause in the proceedings allowed for the necessary attention to be given to the medical situation at hand.
Trump's gesture of gratitude towards the doctors present at the rally emphasized the importance of having medical support available during large public gatherings. It also demonstrated his willingness to prioritize the safety and health of attendees over continuing his prepared remarks.
During the same rally, Trump took a moment to speak positively about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, expressing appreciation for their endorsements. His comments indicated a sense of unity among figures who have shown support for his campaign.
Trump's remarks about Kennedy were particularly warm, highlighting their long-standing acquaintance and Kennedy's commitment to the country's well-being. The former president's acknowledgment of Kennedy's endorsement suggested he views it as a significant boost to his campaign.
Similarly, Trump's praise for Gabbard focused on her perceived common sense approach, indicating his appreciation for her support as well. The inclusion of these endorsements in his speech suggests Trump is working to broaden his base of support heading into the election season.
Trump addressed the crowd with a message of optimism regarding the upcoming November 5th election. He framed the date as a potential turning point for those dissatisfied with the current political establishment in Washington.
The former president's words:
To every citizen who is sick and tired of the parasitic political class in Washington that sucks our country of its blood and treasure, November 5th will be your liberation day. November 5th, this year will be the most important day in the history of our country. Because we're not gonna have a country anymore if we don't win.
This statement encapsulates Trump's campaign rhetoric, positioning himself as an outsider fighting against what he characterizes as a detrimental political elite. His use of strong language underscores the urgency he aims to convey to his supporters about the importance of the election.
In conclusion, Trump's rally in Mosinee, Wisconsin, was marked by several noteworthy moments. The former president paused his speech to address a medical emergency involving a collapsed supporter, showing concern for attendee welfare. He praised Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard for their endorsements, indicating a broadening of his support base. Trump also delivered a message of hope to his supporters, emphasizing the significance of the upcoming November election in his campaign narrative.
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.
A New York judge has delayed former President Donald Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Justice Juan Merchan rescheduled the sentencing -- in which Trump could receive prison time -- for Nov. 26, moving it beyond the presidential election, as Just the News reports.
The sentencing stems from Trump’s conviction earlier this year on 34 counts of falsifying business records. These charges are related to a 2016 payment made by Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The payment was made in an effort to keep Daniels from publicly discussing her alleged affair with Trump, a claim the former president has consistently denied.
The sentencing was originally scheduled for July 11, but was first postponed to Sept. 18. Now, in a second delay, the new date has been set for November 26. This timing moves it to just after the upcoming presidential election, in which Trump is once again seeking to win the White House.
Trump’s legal team had sought to delay the sentencing further while filing motions to dismiss the charges. His attorneys argue that the former president’s actions should have been protected under presidential immunity, given that the payment to Daniels was made during his 2016 campaign. This legal strategy has sparked debate among legal experts and political commentators.
A hearing was also scheduled for Sept. 16 to address Trump’s claims to immunity, but that has also been postponed. The hearing could play a significant role in the trajectory of the case moving forward.
In addition to seeking delays, Trump has asked the court to dismiss the guilty verdict entirely. His legal team contends that critical evidence and testimony should have been excluded, citing a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that could influence the former president's claims of presidential immunity.
Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the payment to Daniels was a personal matter and not a violation of campaign finance laws. He has framed the case as politically motivated, suggesting that the charges were part of a broader effort to derail his 2024 campaign.
The delay in sentencing gives Trump more time to focus on his presidential run without the immediate distraction of a legal ruling hanging over his head. However, the ongoing legal battles ensure that the case will remain a significant part of the political landscape.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, under Bragg, has indicated it will continue to pursue the case vigorously. Bragg has faced significant pressure from both political supporters and detractors, many of whom argue that the case has broader implications for the rule of law and the accountability of elected officials.
For Trump, the delay represents both a temporary reprieve and an ongoing challenge. While he avoids immediate sentencing, the legal questions surrounding the case will likely remain a focus as his campaign progresses.
As the Nov. 26 sentencing date approaches, the intersection of Trump’s legal troubles and his political ambitions will continue to be a topic of significant public interest. Both his critics and supporters will be watching closely to see how the case unfolds and what impact, if any, it has on the broader election campaign.
The former president’s future, both in the courtroom and on the campaign trail, remains uncertain as legal battles continue to swirl around him.