Trump's attempt to delay sentencing and overturn hush money verdict after SCOTUS ruling sparks outrage

WASHINGTON, DC: Former President Donald Trump has requested that the judge in his New York hush money case either delay the sentencing or dismiss the guilty verdict, citing a recent immunity ruling by the US Supreme Court, according to a report by NBC News.

In a letter to Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the hush money trial, attorneys for the Republican presumptive nominee sought to overturn the jury's guilty verdict.

They argued that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg presented evidence related to Trump's official acts, which are now protected under the latest ruling by the Supreme Court.

Trump's move came soon after the Supreme Court, on Monday, July 1, by a 6-3 majority, ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity from being prosecuted for official acts that come under their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" and presumptive immunity for all official acts.

However, the conservative Supreme Court noted that an ex-president does not have immunity for private or unofficial acts.

Trump's attorney asks hush money judge to delay July 11 sentencing

On May 30, after weeks of trial, Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election in exchange for her silence about their affair.

Though the hush money payment occurred before he entered the White House, subsequent developments included reimbursing the money to Trump's former fixer, Michael Cohen, who paid off Daniels during Trump's presidency.

Judge Merchan was set to announce the sentencing on July 11, less than a week before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where Trump would formally be announced as the 2024 GOP presidential nominee.

However, the SCOTUS immunity ruling prompted Trump's lawyers to seek to overturn the felony conviction and delay the July 11 sentencing, according to sources with direct knowledge of the matter.

The defense team move urged Merchan to consider how the Supreme Court ruling would impact the former president's conviction since prosecutors are now barred from charging a president over his official acts and evidence related to official acts.

However, the apex court stated lower courts could determine what should be considered an official act.

Internet blasts Trump's latest move to overthrow hush money verdict

Netizens criticized the former president for seeking to delay the hush money sentencing and set aside the verdict shortly after the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.

"LOL. What a garbage fire," a user wrote.

"That’s ridiculous. Everything about the New York trial was about actions taken prior to him being elected," another remarked.

"The SCOTUS in the US has set their country on a path of utter confusion. Trump now thinks his sentence in New York is bogus as being a crook is ok as long as you are the President. You folks are in serious trouble," added a user.

"It has started already. This happened before he was in power. But because he had meetings with Cohen and wrote checks while in power, he wants immunity. Trump is a whiny baby coward. And a felon. The enormous threat to democracy with this ruling cannot be understated. VOTE," read a response.

"…and this is exactly the type of abuse of privilege Justice Sotomayor was referring to, smh," another person said.

"According to Trump, becoming President once entitles you legal immunity for all things past present and future, which is insane, but I wouldn't be surprised of the SC agrees with Dear Leader," someone else chimed in. [sic]

"This is a bonkers move. Even under the precedent of the Court today, this act is not immune. Funneling off hush money that goes to a porn star is a private act. That’s NOT an official act," an individual wrote.

"The payoffs literally didn't even occur when he was president. Goddamn this dude is dumb as hell," another user added. [sic]

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.