Supreme Court refuses to delay Trump’s hush money sentencing

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court refused to delay Donald Trump’s sentencing in his hush money case, clearing the way for the president-elect to face judgment in a New York courtroom on Friday and to be formally classified as a felon before he returns to the White House.

Trump turned to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort to stop the hearing, citing the conservative majority’s explosive opinion in July that granted him and other former presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts.

He is set to be sentenced Friday, after a jury convicted him of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to an adult-film actress during the 2016 election. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial, has said he does not plan to give the incoming president jail time or probation.

But the completion of the sentencing hearing would formalize Trump’s status as the first former president or president-elect convicted of criminal wrongdoing — a designation Trump had hoped to avoid.

Trump’s attorneys have tried repeatedly to have his conviction tossed and sentencing delayed, saying he should be shielded from criminal proceedings because they would interfere with his presidential transition.

“Forcing President Trump to defend a criminal case and appear for a criminal sentencing hearing at the apex of the Presidential transition creates a constitutionally intolerable risk of disruption to national security and America’s vital interests,” his lawyers told the justices this week.

The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg told the justices there was no basis for the high court to “take the extraordinary step of intervening” to stop the scheduled sentencing. Prosecutors urged the court to reject Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution before he takes the oath of office and said the president-elect will not be unduly burdened by having to attend by remote video feed a hearing that probably will take less than an hour.

A state appeals court judge on Tuesday denied Trump’s request to stay the sentencing, signaling that judge’s belief that Trump has a low chance of succeeding when the immunity claim is fully evaluated by the appeals court. The state’s highest court rejected Trump’s request to intervene on Thursday.

Trump’s conviction stems from efforts to conceal a payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election to keep her quiet about an alleged sexual encounter with him a decade before. Trump denies the encounter ever happened.

Prosecutors said the Daniels payment — made through an intermediary — should have been reported to campaign finance regulators and was illegally concealed by classifying the reimbursement payments as a legal expense.

It was the only one of Trump’s four criminal indictments to go to trial before the election. He has been dismissed as a party in two of the other cases because he was elected president. The fourth case in Georgia is stalled in appellate litigation and unlikely to move forward against Trump while he is in the White House.

In the New York case, Trump’s lawyers said the Supreme Court’s immunity decision means state prosecutors should not have been allowed to present evidence at trial of Trump’s actions while in office, including the testimony of close White House advisers.

Merchan has repeatedly ruled that the hush money case was based on private, personal conduct, not Trump’s official duties during his first term, and that the Supreme Court’s decision granting former presidents broad immunity for official actions does not apply.

The judge also has noted it was Trump’s team that asked the court months ago to postpone sentencing — originally scheduled for summer — until after the election. After making that request, Merchan wrote, it is not credible for Trump to say that winning the election makes him immune from being sentenced.

Trump’s emergency request for help from the Supreme Court was an early test for the justices, who are likely to confront a wave of challenges to the incoming president’s controversial agenda, particularly on immigration and the federal workforce. (Source: The Washington Post)