President-elect Donald Trump got a favorable ‘ruling,’ of sorts, from a noted legal expert regarding his so-called “hush money” case pending in New York City. CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig stated Friday that Judge Juan Merchan is unlikely to ever sentence President-elect Donald Trump, despite his conviction in New York. Earlier in the day Merchan issued an order indefinitely delaying Trump’s sentencing, which had been scheduled for Tuesday. The judge granted the defense until December 2 to file a motion to dismiss the case and instructed prosecutors to respond by December 9.
Speaking on CNN News Central, Honig expressed his belief that the sentencing would never occur and predicted the case would eventually go away. “It means that the sentencing is on hold indefinitely and quite possibly for more than that, probably never to actually happen, because what they have to do before that is litigate the whole issue of, is Donald Trump immune? Can a state-level prosecution proceed against him while he’s president-elect and then president?” Honig said. “I’m gonna spoil the bottom line here: He’s not going to get sentenced on this case. He’s not going to get sentenced before he becomes president. He’s not going to get sentenced while he’s president.”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, in a Tuesday filing, suggested delaying remaining case proceedings until Trump’s term concludes in 2029. “And [Bragg] earlier this week actually floated the possibility — they said, ‘We may want to hold open the option of sentencing him after he’s done his second term,’ meaning in 2029. That is not going to happen,” he continued. “That is a ridiculous request legally and practically. So essentially, we’re playing out the string here. I think eventually this case will go away. It’s just a question of what the niceties will be down the stretch.”
Merchan on Friday approved President-elect Donald Trump’s request to file a motion to dismiss the charges in New York v. Trump and removed the previously scheduled sentencing date from the calendar. Merchan set a December 2 deadline for Trump’s attorneys to submit their motion for dismissal, with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team required to respond by December 9. Additionally, Merchan confirmed a joint request from both Trump and Bragg’s legal teams to stay the sentencing. Originally scheduled for November 26, the sentencing has been officially “adjourned,” according to Merchan’s statement, Fox News reported.
In a letter to Merchan on Wednesday, Todd Blanche, the defense attorney for Trump and now-nominee for Deputy Attorney General, demanded that the case against President-elect Donald Trump be dismissed. “On November 5, 2024, the Nation’s People issued a mandate that supersedes the political motivations of DANY’s ‘People,’” Blanche wrote. “This case must be immediately dismissed.” Trump’s attorney also said that “immediate dismissal of this case is mandated by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interests of justice, in order to facilitate the orderly transition of Executive power following President Trump’s overwhelming victory in the 2024 Presidential Election.”
Blanche submitted a pre-motion letter on Wednesday seeking permission to file a motion to dismiss by December 20 and requesting a stay on all case deadlines, a move agreed upon by District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York prosecutors. The letter followed a request from Bragg on Tuesday to Judge Merchan, asking for a stay in the case until 2029. While Bragg indicated his intention to oppose Trump’s motion to dismiss, he expressed a willingness to review the defense’s arguments.
He also argued that Bragg “appears to not yet be ready to dismiss this politically-motivated and fatally flawed case, which is what is mandated by the law and will happen as justice takes its course.” The attorney pointed to Bragg’s own election campaign for another term as Manhattan district attorney. He argued that “continuing with this case would be ‘uniquely destabilizing’ and threatens to ‘hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs.’”
“The Court must address these new issues and dismiss the case, prior to issuing a decision on the previously filed Presidential immunity motion,” Blanche explained. “Any other action would obviously violate the presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause.” Blanche noted further, per Fox, that “even if the Court were to wrongly deny the new interests-of-justice motion, which it should not do, the appropriate forum for any additional proceedings must first be resolved in President Trump’s removal appeal.”
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.