Judge rejects Trump request to delay hush money sentencing

But you've got some folks, and of course, they'll say stuff about the judge, they’ll say it was politicized, and all you’re doing is giving them fodder and adding to the point, and that is what annoys me,

Smith said

Do you have any support for the notion that presidential immunity extends to a president-elect?”

Gesmer asked Trump’s criminal defense attorney Todd Blanche

Justice Merchan would have been happy to hold that sentencing in July,

she said

If he was concerned about this issue he could've easily had this proceeding go forward in July, in September,

Gesmer said

There has never been a case like this before, so no."

Blanche replied

I don't find that hypothetical very helpful,

Gesmer said, asking Blanche to focus on his arguments related to presidential immunity

Remember, this is a man that said he wants the transition to be smooth,

Trump told reporters on Tuesday before the hearing began

After consideration of the papers submitted and the extensive oral argument, (Trump's) application for an interim stay is denied."

In a one-line written decision issued about a half hour after the hearing ended, Gesmer wrote

It is unconstitutional to conduct a criminal sentencing of the president-elect during a presidential transition, and doing so threatens to disrupt that transition and undermine the incoming president’s ability to effectively wield the executive power of the United States,

Blanche wrote

This Court has considered Defendant's arguments in support of his motion and finds that they are for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past.Therefor Defendant's motion for a stay of these proceedings, including the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, is hereby DENIED."

Judge Juan Merchan in Monday's hush money sentencing ruling

Merrick Garlandattorney General

Smith's proposed plan for releasing a report is unlawful, undertaken in bad faith, and contrary to the public interest. The time has come to put an end to this weaponization of the justice system and move forward constructively. No report should be prepared or released, and Smith should be removed, including for even suggesting that course of action given his obvious political motivations and desire to flawlessly undermine the transition."

Trump lawyers writing to Attorney General Merrick Garland

Walt Nautacase, Trump valet

These Defendants will irreparably suffer harm as civilian casualties of the Government's impermissible and contumacious utilization of political lawfare to include release of the unauthorized Report. The Final Report relies on materials to which Smith, as disqualified special counsel, is no longer entitled access—making his attempt to share such materials with the public highly improper."

Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira's legal team writing to Judge Aileen Cannon

And the current schedule is entirely a function of defendant’s repeated requests to adjourn a sentencing date that was originally set for July 11, 2024; he should not now be heard to complain of harm from delays he caused,

prosecutors added

Defendant will suffer no prejudice from the conclusion of criminal proceedings in the trial court given the Court’s intended sentence of an unconditional discharge and defendant’s decision to appear for sentencing virtually instead of in person—indeed, entry of judgment is necessary to allow the appeal defendant has repeatedly stated he will pursue,

prosecutors wrote in the filing

Justice Merchan’s erroneous decisions threaten the institution of the Presidency and run squarely against established precedent disallowing any criminal process against a President-Elect, as well as prohibiting the use of evidence of a President’s official acts against him in a criminal proceeding,

Trump’s attorneys wrote in the filing with the appeals court Monday

The Court should vacate the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, and suspend all further deadlines in the case until President Trump’s immunity appeals are fully and finally resolved, which should result in a dismissal of this case, which should have never been brought in the first place,

Trump’s filing states

His claim that sitting-president immunity extends into the transitional period while he is 'president-elect' is nonsense. There's no such doctrine in American law. He's making this up,

Eisen added

Norm Eisenlegal expert

I call BS. Presidential immunity does not apply here because the case pertains to events that took place before Trump was first elected president.”

Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, criticized

Trump argues that 'further criminal proceedings are automatically stayed by operation of federal constitutional law.' Wrong again! There is no automatic stay. He's making this shit up as he goes along,

Eisen further highlighted

This Court finds that the authorities relied upon in the instant motion by the Defendant are for the most part, factually distinguishable from the actual record or legally inapplicable,

Merchan wrote