Trump’s Delay Request For Sentencing In Hush Money Case Rejected

In a significant turn of events, a judge has denied Donald Trump's plea to postpone the sentencing in his hush-money case, which remains set for January 10, 2025, The Daily Wire reported.

The sentencing involves charges of falsifying business records related to alleged payments to Stormy Daniels, just days before Trump is scheduled to be inaugurated as President-elect.

Donald Trump, who was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts, made an attempt to delay the sentencing as part of his legal strategy following his conviction. The charges stem from accusations of illicit payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in a bid to keep an alleged affair under wraps. This request to delay the sentencing was filed by Trump's legal team on Monday.

Trump's Legal Team Pushes For Delay

The motion to delay, however, faced swift rejection by Judge Juan Merchan. The judge made his stance clear, emphasizing on Monday that the request "for a stay of these proceedings, including the sentencing hearing," is denied. This decisive ruling underscores the urgency with which the proceedings are set to continue, with the sentencing decisively scheduled for Friday.

Despite the denial, the legal avenues for Trump's team have not entirely closed. They are exploring the possibility of appealing to a higher court to seek a deferral. Trump's legal woes aren't confined to this recent denial but also include a previous rejection of a motion to overturn the guilty verdict by Judge Merchan.

Trump's Criticism Of Judicial Decisions

In response to these judicial decisions, Trump's camp, particularly the incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung, has been vocal. Cheung has labeled the impending sentencing as "unlawful," citing precedents such as the Supreme Court's historic decisions on immunity, the constitution of New York, and other legal frameworks. According to Cheung, these laws demand the immediate dismissal of what he describes as a meritless case.

The former president expressed a personal reaction to these developments on social media. On Saturday, a post on Truth Social captured Trump's view that he never falsified records, accusing the judicial system of being politically biased. He described the charges as "made up" by a "corrupt judge," claiming that Judge Merchan is executing the agenda of the Biden administration against him.

Potential For Sentence Without Punishment

As the sentencing date looms, Judge Merchan hinted at a potential outcome that signifies no punishment, termed as "unconditional discharge." This suggestion was made despite the gravity of the 34 felony counts filed against Trump, all related to alleged business record falsifications.

The upcoming hearing on January 10 is anticipated to see Trump in attendance, although there's potential for him to participate virtually. The legal proceedings that have revealed accused payments to Stormy Daniels also spotlighted Trump's denial of these charges, which he argues are driven by political ambitions.

Criticisms Of Judicial Process Continue

In the face of his legal battles, Trump has not softened his stance. His criticism extends beyond the specific charges to include alleged biased treatment by the judge. Trump insists that the charges are merely a political strategy by current political adversaries, prohibiting him from discussing the purportedly flawed judicial process due to imposed restrictions.

As it stands, the legal team's argument continues to point toward a belief in Trump's immunity and unfitness of the charges leveled against him. Statements from Steven Cheung suggest an ongoing effort to challenge the legitimacy of the case, hoping for intervention that aligns with their interpretation of the law.

Looking Ahead To the Sentencing Date

The upcoming Friday hearing is a pivotal moment in what has become a highly publicized case involving the former president. As legal experts speculate and analyze the potential repercussions, the world watches with interest to see how the situation will finally unfold. Whether the January 10 sentencing proceeds as planned or faces another judicial intervention, it remains a focal point in a complex legal and political narrative.

The layers of legal back-and-forth in this case, characterized by motions and counter-motions, illustrate the intricate nature of judicial proceedings involving high-profile figures.

The judicial decision thus far stands as a testament to the resilience of the judicial process in moving forward amidst significant challenges.