In a pivotal moment on Tuesday, Donald Trump fell short in his bid to convince a New York appeals court to block his sentencing scheduled for this Friday in connection with the Manhattan hush money case. Trump’s legal team, led by his personal attorney Todd Blanche—who is slated to become the deputy attorney general of the Justice Department soon—appeared before an intermediate New York state appeals court in Manhattan. The goal was simple: to delay or halt the upcoming sentencing, which has been one of the focal points in Trump’s ongoing legal battles.
Blanche’s arguments during the 30-minute emergency hearing, however, failed to make much of an impression on Judge Ellen Gesmer, who presided over the case. Blanche’s central defense rested on two key points: First, that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling earlier in the summer had granted Trump immunity, and second, that holding the sentencing on Friday would cause undue hardship, especially as Trump focuses on preparing for his presidential campaign.
Trump, who is no stranger to legal struggles, had already faced significant setbacks. Back during the spring trial, Judge Juan Merchan, the judge who oversaw the trial where Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, had repeatedly blocked attempts by Trump’s team to dismiss the case. Despite Trump’s defense attorneys invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in July—stating that presidents are generally immune from prosecution for the majority of official acts—Merchan did not buy the arguments in the hush money case.
Blanche’s arguments were heard in court on Tuesday, and it became clear that Judge Gesmer wasn’t easily swayed by the claims of presidential immunity, especially when applied to a president-elect. During the hearing, she directly challenged Blanche's argument that presidential immunity should extend to a president-elect, pointing out that there was no legal precedent to support such a claim. Blanche himself acknowledged that no case like this had ever been brought before the court.
In her questioning, Judge Gesmer pushed further, asking Blanche whether he had any substantial evidence that suggested conversations with White House officials or actions connected to those conversations could be considered official acts, thereby granting Trump immunity under the Supreme Court’s ruling. Blanche’s response seemed to falter, as he was unable to present any convincing legal reasoning. At one point, Gesmer even remarked that she was “dealing with alleged immunity of a president-elect,” which underscored the difference between the protections afforded to a sitting president and those potentially available to a president-elect.
Blanche also tried to throw various hypotheticals into the mix, suggesting that Trump could be incarcerated until 12:01 PM on January 20, at which point he would assume the office of the presidency and immediately leave office. He argued that Trump's preparations for the presidency could be severely hampered if he was still incarcerated during the critical transition period. Yet, Judge Gesmer wasn’t moved. She dismissed these hypotheticals as “not very helpful,” emphasizing that Trump had delayed the sentencing multiple times and that it was now time to proceed.
Trump's legal team had already postponed the sentencing multiple times, with the original date scheduled for July. After several delays—first to September, then November, and now to January 10—it seemed that Judge Gesmer had run out of patience. She noted that the case could very well be concluded before Trump's inauguration, hinting that the delays had stretched far enough. Her decision came swiftly, and just 30 minutes after the hearing, she issued a ruling denying Trump’s request for a stay, which would have delayed the sentencing.
This ruling leaves Trump with limited options. While Judge Gesmer did set deadlines for any potential replies or further motions, the clock is ticking. Trump’s attorneys could seek to appeal the decision to the New York State Court of Appeals, or even petition the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, though it remains highly uncertain whether any of these actions would lead to a delay. As things stand, Trump’s sentencing is still scheduled for Friday, with little indication that the legal wheels will slow down anytime soon.
What makes this case even more intriguing is the tension between the legal proceedings and Trump’s broader political aspirations. The former president’s efforts to delay sentencing, citing the difficulties of preparing for the presidency while potentially facing jail time, underscores the unprecedented nature of this situation. For Trump, the stakes are high. Not only is he facing legal consequences for his actions in the hush money case, but the outcome could also have significant ramifications on his political future, especially as he seeks to reclaim the White House in 2024.
There’s also the broader legal and political context to consider. The Manhattan hush money case is just one of many legal challenges Trump is currently facing. These cases, along with his political ambitions, create a unique intersection of law, politics, and public perception. It’s a dynamic that could make or break Trump’s comeback bid, with each legal decision potentially reshaping the political landscape.
As the clock continues to tick down to the Friday sentencing, the questions surrounding Trump’s legal strategy and political maneuvering will remain at the forefront of public discourse. For now, Trump’s attempt to delay the sentencing has failed, but the case is far from over. With further motions and appeals still on the table, there’s no telling how this legal saga will ultimately unfold. One thing is certain: The drama surrounding Donald Trump, his legal battles, and his quest for the presidency will continue to make headlines, no matter the outcome of this particular case.
Login