Manhattan DA opposes dismissing Trump’s hush money charges, proposing alternative sentencing options that could reshape the legal landscape for the former president.
At a Glance
- Trump found guilty of 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records
- DA Bragg suggests non-incarceration sentencing or delaying sentencing until Trump leaves office
- Prosecutors argue presidential immunity begins at inauguration, not as president-elect
- Judge Juan Merchan to decide case’s future, with no further briefs expected
- Trump’s other criminal cases have stalled following his election victory
DA Bragg’s Bold Move: Alternatives to Dismissal
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has taken a firm stance against dismissing Donald Trump’s hush money charges, despite the former president’s recent election victory. In a surprising turn of events, Bragg’s office has proposed several alternatives to outright dismissal, including non-incarceration sentencing options and the possibility of delaying sentencing until after Trump’s potential second term in office.
This move by the DA’s office underscores the complex legal and political landscape surrounding Trump’s legal troubles. While acknowledging the importance of an orderly executive transition, prosecutors argue that these concerns do not necessitate the dismissal of a case that has already resulted in a jury verdict.
The Manhattan district attorney agrees to postpone President-elect Donald Trump's sentencing in the hush money case https://t.co/uH1RZRcZHs
— CNN (@CNN) November 19, 2024
Presidential Immunity: A Key Point of Contention
At the heart of this legal battle is the question of presidential immunity. Trump’s lawyers have argued for immediate dismissal of the prosecution, citing his status as president-elect. However, Bragg’s office has countered this claim, asserting that presidential immunity only begins at inauguration, not during the transition period.
“There are no grounds for such relief now, prior to defendant’s inauguration, because President-elect immunity does not exist,” Bragg said.
This stance by the prosecutors challenges Trump’s attempt to leverage his election victory as a shield against ongoing legal proceedings. It also raises critical questions about the extent of presidential powers and immunities during the transition period between election and inauguration.
The Verdict Stands: Prosecutors Defend Jury Decision
In their filing, prosecutors emphasized the importance of upholding the jury’s unanimous guilty verdict. They argue that dismissing the case would be an extreme measure, unnecessarily discarding the results of a completed legal process.
As Judge Juan Merchan deliberates on the future of this case, several potential outcomes loom. The judge could choose to postpone Trump’s sentencing until after he leaves office, potentially in 2029. Alternatively, the case could be ended without sentencing, acknowledging the jury verdict while avoiding further proceedings during Trump’s potential presidency.
