A New York ruling has postponed Donald Trump’s ruling until September to review the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity.
The most sensible court in the United States ruled on Monday that presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts while in office, adding a touch of flavor to Trump, who is accused of illegally trying to overturn his 2020 election loss.
The former president asked Judge Juan Merchán to delay sentencing his conviction for money paid to a porn star to give him a chance to argue that he was immune from prosecution.
Prosecutors said Trump’s argument was “without merit” but agreed to the deadline to give Trump time to make his case. In a post on his own social network, Truth Social, Trump called the move a “total exoneration. “
However, he will most likely face an uphill war to get the secret cash conviction overturned, as much of the conduct in this case predates his tenure.
The sentencing, initially scheduled for July 11, is now scheduled for September 18.
The delay will take the conviction beyond the Republic’s July 15 National Convention, when Trump is scheduled to be officially nominated as the party’s nominee for the Nov. 5 presidential election.
Trump was found guilty on May 30 of falsifying business records to conceal the $130,000 payment made through his former lawyer Michael Cohen to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
The offer kept her quiet about an alleged sexual relationship in 2006 until after the 2016 election, when Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Trump denies having any dealings with Daniels and said he will appeal the conviction after his conviction.
Prosecutors said the payment component was an illicit scheme to influence the election.
Read more: The decision provides Biden with a welcome respite from health problems. Biden says presidents who govern immunity can ‘ignore the law’
In their letter to Judge Merchan, Trump’s team argued that prosecutors had used evidence implicating his official moves as president, i. e. , conversations at the White House.
According to the Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors use evidence similar to official movements to uncover criminal cases involving unofficial movements.