Last Updated on 07/09/2024 by Arun jain
NEW You can now listen to articles from Fox News!
put off Former President Donald TrumpPunishment up to After the 2024 electionsJudge Juan Murchan did the right thing for the wrong reason. This is evident from his setting for sentencing on Nov. 26, however – according to A four-page letter Merchan is delaying his ruling on Trump’s immunity claim until Nov. 12, he announced today, to advise.
In my view, Trump is right that going forward with the September 18th scheduled sentencing would be an unnecessary interference in the 2024 election. There was no reason why the law needed to punish Trump, a major-party nominee, in the stretch run of the presidential campaign. And note that, until today’s adjournment, Judge Merchan seemed insistent on sentencing Trump just as early voting begins (on September 16) in Pennsylvania, one of the most important of the battleground states.
While Trump has been indicted on 34 felony charges, a business-records offense is a non-violent offense that is usually a misdemeanor in New York (and is usually not charged at all by Manhattan’s paragon progressive prosecutor, Alvin Bragg). And while 34 counts sounds impressive, the number is only that high because Bragg unethically analyzed what should have been no more than a handful of counts, charging each scrap of paper separately as a four-year felony—that’s 136 years. Up to possible imprisonment!
This was done to make Trump look like a career criminal. But given that the offense at issue is relatively minor, along with Trump’s lack of a criminal record, he was clearly going to get bail, pending an appeal regardless of the sentence that was imposed. Those appeals can take years to resolve, and it’s likely (in my opinion) that guilty verdicts will be reversed on appeal – if not already vacated (more on that moment).
Hence, there should be no rush to pass sentence before elections. In his letter, Merchan protested that he was “unbiased, impartial and apolitical”. In contrast, he is a partisan Democrat who, Hugh Hewitt has observedContributed to Biden’s 2020 campaign against Trump in violation of judicial ethics laws, and works for Kamala Harris, whose daughter is a progressive political operative, among other fervent anti-Trump Democrats. For a truly apolitical judge, a sentence on September 18 would be unthinkable. The only rational reason to insist on that is to enable Harris to label Trump a “convicted felon facing prison time” in the run-up to Election Day.
All that said, however, the legal basis for postponement should not be the imminence of an election. Because of Bragg’s recklessness and Merchan’s interest in it, it should now be an indisputable fact that there is a serious issue of immunity in this case.
Over Trump’s objections, and despite the fact that the Supreme Court was simultaneously considering presidential immunity, Murchan allowed Bragg’s lawyers to introduce evidence of Trump’s official presidential acts — including testimony from two Trump White House staffers, which he called “devastating.” ” has been described as Prosecutors in their jury summation.
A month after the trial, in his immunity ruling (Trump Vs. United States), not only did the Supreme Court hold that presidents were immune from prosecution for official acts; The court added that such acts cannot be admitted as evidence in a criminal trial. Consequently, the disputed evidence must be excluded.
What’s more, immunity is one of the few issues of criminal law for which a defendant is entitled to an immediate appeal—especially a former president facing potential criminalization of his official acts. This is because, unlike other trial errors, immunity is related to whether the trial was (or was) worth taking in the first place. Questions of immunity, then, must be decided before an immunized defendant is subjected to further proceedings.
So postponement should be an easy call for merchants. However, this still seems lost on him.
In his letter, Murchan inconsistently claimed that if his original sentencing date had been July 11, there would have been no need to delay the sentence. But she could not keep the date. The Supreme Court’s immunity decision was issued on July 1. This immunity ruling necessitated the delay of the 2024 elections.
Merchan also notes that Bragg also did not object to Trump’s motion to postpone (in fact, he understands Bragg to have joined Trump’s motion). But the judge seemed impervious to the fact that the DA took the position because Trump would be entitled to appeal if Merchan were to rule on immunity against him. Delay was inevitable.
Finally, Merchan previously said he would issue his immunity ruling on September 16. Now that sentencing was adjourned until November 26, however, Murchan somehow decided to postpone the immunity ruling until November 12. It makes no sense.
If Merchan rules against Trump on November 12 (as I expect, given the one-sided record in this case, he will), Trump will appeal and forcefully argue that he should not be punished unless that appeal goes his way. Should – through the New York appellate courts and potentially up to the US Supreme Court. Obviously, this is not going to happen before November 26.
If, as he told the parties, Merchan was prepared to rule on Trump’s immunity claim on September 16, he should have done so. Even on such a schedule, there’s no way the appeals process for his ruling could be resolved in time for the Nov. 26 sentencing — and even Merchan admits the sentencing may not take place at all if he deems the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling necessary. To vacate convictions. (Don’t bet the ranch on it.)
In any case, postponing the September 26 sentencing should be a no-brainer. Merchan eventually came to him, but awkwardly. I don’t know if Trump will win the election, but I seriously doubt he will have to cancel his Thanksgiving plans at the November 26 sentencing.
Post Andrew McCarthy: Anti-Trump judge stumbles on right decision in sentencing delay appeared first Fox News.