Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“A New York judge on Friday delayed former U.S. President Donald Trump's sentencing in his hush money criminal case until after the Nov. 5 election, writing that he wants to avoid the unwarranted perception of a political motive… [Trump] had previously been scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 18… [Justice Juan] Merchan said on Friday he now planned to sentence Trump on Nov. 26, unless the case is dismissed before then.” Reuters
“A top Department of Justice spokesman in New York was caught on a hidden camera ripping Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for his recent prosecution of former President Donald Trump — accusing Bragg of conducting ‘lawfare’ just to further his own political ambitions… The edited clip, and another from August 14, were released by [conservative podcaster Steven] Crowder on social media…
“An apologetic [Nicholas] Biase told The Post in a statement Thursday that he made the remarks in a private setting with someone he’d ‘just met’ and was trying to ‘impress.’ At one point in the video, Biase accused Bragg of ‘stacking charges [against Trump] and, like, rearranging things just to make it fit a case.’” New York Post
Here’s our previous coverage of the case. The Flip Side
The left is divided about the delay.
Some argue, “Trump’s lawyers claimed that the only reasons to move forward with the sentencing as planned were ‘naked election-interference objectives.’ In fact, Trump was convicted over three months ago, which is a perfectly normal amount of time to pass before sentencing in a criminal case after a conviction. And appeals do not delay sentencings in the ordinary course…
“The solution in situations like this — when there is a potentially meritorious appeal in a complex and unusual criminal case — is a simple one: The judge sentences the defendant and lets him remain out on bail pending the resolution of the appeal. If the appeal is successful and the conviction is thrown out, then the sentence is vacated…
“One obvious reason for this arrangement is judicial efficiency. Appeals can take years, and if the defendant requires sentencing, it is much better for everyone involved for that to happen while the facts and evidence are fresh in the parties’ and the judge’s minds… Trump’s sentencing should have gone forward.”
Ankush Khardori, Politico
Others note, “On the one hand, imagine if Trump were to be sentenced on Sept. 18 to a term of imprisonment. He wouldn’t begin serving his sentence until after the election, or possibly until after appeal, well into 2025. If he were to win the election, he would begin serving after his term ends in 2029…
“But in the weeks leading up to the election, he would lean into the role of martyr, renewing his accusations that the judge and prosecution are engaging in election interference. He would continue to speak of the ‘weaponization’ of the criminal justice system, further undermining public trust in the rule of law…
“On the other hand, imagine if Trump is sentenced to a term of probation with no prison time, an outcome that seems more likely for non-violent offenses by a first-time offender. Trump would be able to boast that the entire prosecution was much ado about nothing. Either way, it’s hard to see a pre-election sentencing decision increasing the public’s faith in the judiciary.”
Barbara L McQuade, Bloomberg
“If Justice Juan Merchan — an exceptionally wise jurist — had stuck to his Sept. 18 schedule, it’s hard to see how he could have sentenced a possible future president to anything more than probation. If he sentenced Trump to prison, it would have seemed highly political, even if it wasn’t, and would have probably helped Trump. And Merchan knows that if Trump wins, any decision to incarcerate the president-elect would almost certainly be viewed as impractical by a higher court…
“But if Kamala Harris wins, the judge — who is clearly fed up with Trump’s shenanigans — will be free of political pressure and can impose an appropriately stiff sentence… Ironically, the justice that was delayed on Friday could be justice enhanced in the future.”
Jonathan Alter, New York Times
The right supports the delay and criticizes the charges against Trump.
The right supports the delay and criticizes the charges against Trump.
“The offense at issue is comparatively trivial, given that, along with Trump’s lack of a criminal record, he was clearly going to get bail pending appeal regardless of what sentence was imposed. That appeal could take years to resolve, and it is probable (in my view) that the guilty verdicts will be reversed on appeal – if they are not vacated even earlier…
“Hence, there should have been no rush to impose sentence prior to the election. In his letter, [Merchan] preciously protests that he is ‘fair, impartial and apolitical.’ To the contrary, he is a partisan Democrat who… contributed to Biden’s 2020 campaign against Trump in violation of judicial ethics laws, and whose daughter is a progressive political operative, working for Kamala Harris, among other zealously anti-Trump Democrats. For a truly apolitical judge, sentencing on Sept. 18 would have been inconceivable.”
Andrew McCarthy, Fox News
“A central problem for the prosecution and Judge Merchan lies in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal law the ‘supreme law of the land.’ That pre-empts state law when it conflicts with federal law… Mr. Trump’s conviction violates this principle because it hinges on alleged violations of state election law governing campaign spending and contributions. The Federal Election Campaign Act pre-empts these laws as applied to federal campaigns. If it didn’t, there would be chaos…
“In 2019 the FEC investigated whether Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign failed to disclose millions in contributions from an outside political action committee. The agency deadlocked, and no penalties were imposed. In 2022 the FEC levied $113,000 in civil penalties against Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for violating FECA because it improperly coded as ‘legal services,’ rather than campaign expenditures, money paid to Christopher Steele for production of the ‘dossier’…
“In neither instance did any state or local prosecutor indict Mrs. Clinton under state election law based on failure to disclose these contributions or expenditures properly… In using New York’s election law to brand Mr. Trump a felon based on his actions with respect to a federal election, Mr. Bragg subverts FECA’s goal of providing predictable, uniform national rules regarding disclosure of federal campaign contributions and expenses, including penalties for noncompliance.”
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley, Wall Street Journal
“‘You know it's a perversion of justice,’ Biase said. In other words, this was motivated by partisan politics. And Biase isn't the first person to say so. Just after the verdict was announced, former federal prosecutor Elie Honig wrote a piece for New York Magazine making the case that Bragg contorted the law… I wonder how many more people like this are out there and why it takes an undercover sting video to hear from them.”
John Sexton, Hot Air
Iceland Encourages Locals To Throw Baby Puffins Off Cliffs.
Giant Freakin Robot
