Editorial: Trump gets another break: Justice Juan Merchan put off the hush money sentencing to after the election
In a four-page letter on Friday, Acting Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan explained his reasoning in postponing Donald Trump’s sentencing for his 34 felony convictions in the Stormy Daniels hush money case until late November, after the election.
Merchan pointed to the need for analysis on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s misguided immunity decision earlier this summer, along with other points that cumulatively should worry everyone who cares about the rule of law and the principles of accountability.
The Trump legal team’s contention that the unanimous jury conviction somehow hinges on the relatively minor pieces of evidence that could be construed as official Oval Office acts is laughable, of course. This is a case that involves private conduct taking place before the 2016 election, with a view towards impacting the results of that election; the bulk of the documentary evidence and the testimony has nothing to do with Trump’s official functions as president.
Even in the case of Trump’s conversations with Hope Hicks, who was at the time a White House staffer, it’s difficult to argue that these were governmental functions about any legitimate executive business. Still, it’s pretty clear to everyone who followed the trial that this evidence could have been completely absent and the verdict would have been the same, courtesy of the mountain of evidence that prosecutors had.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg not opposing Trump’s efforts to postpone the sentencing likely figured heavily into Merchan’s calculus to push back the proceedings. The judge also specifically mentions the appearance of interference in the current presidential election, meaning that Trump got lucky again, just as he has many times before.
There’s no specific legal reason why this sentencing can’t move forward before votes are cast; the judge could easily sentence Trump and then allow him to remain free while appeals are exhausted, well after the election takes place.
Instead, Trump and his allies’ constant cloying and insinuations have made this an issue where it wasn’t one, and the result is the voting public is once more shown that Trump is above the consequences that would befall pretty much anyone else, and without a crucial piece of information as they make their choice.
It’s difficult to imagine the actual mechanics of Trump serving some sort of sentence in the eventuality that he is elected president, but again, there’s no particular legal reason. The voters should know what he’s facing.
There is one especially sinister dimension to all this, which is the notion that Merchan may have agreed to the delay at least in part out of concern of bearing the additional brunt of intimidation and veiled threats from the former president and his cronies and the very real possibility of violence from his supporters.
The judge has received dozens of death threats already and Trump has not let up on attacking him or his daughter while insinuating he may take some sort of official action against everyone involved with the prosecution if he makes it back to the White House.
We would recognize the implications of threats on a sitting judge affecting their legal decision-making against a prominent figure in any other country and most other contexts, and we should not ignore them here.
___
