Former President Donald Trump's legal woes are playing a significant role in the U.S. presidential campaign, with a potential key development set to take place by mid-September: his scheduled sentencing on the so-called "hush money" case.
Trump is set to learn judge Juan Merchan's decision on September 18, but his defense has presented a new filing aimed at avoiding this, something a former U.S. attorney is calling the "last hurdle" before the sentencing.
Glenn Kirschner, former U.S. Attorney and NBC News legal analyst, explained in a video that Trump's lawyers are resorting to the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding Trump having broad immunity from prosecution for his actions as president. Concretely, they say the ruling needs to be "thrown out" based on the decision.
Kirschner was highly critical of the initiative and the Supreme Court ruling, saying it established that the "Constitution is unconstitutional" and that "presidents can commit all the crimes they want against the American people with complete impunity and immunity if they are 'official acts of the presidency.'"
Merchan agreed to address the filing, but clarified that the date for the September 18 ruling holds. Kirschner added that the situation creates friction between the Supreme Court ruling and the proceedings as defendants are allowed to appeal until after the sentence, but Trump could argue that he shouldn't "have to go through any of that" because he has broad immunity.
However, the former U.S. attorney claimed that even if that ruling were to apply to the case, Trump wouldn't be reached by presidential immunity because "his conduct was before" he took office. "And reimbursements to his fixer Michael Cohen are not presidential acts," he added.
Kirschner, who has also served as a U.S. Army prosecutor and assistant U.S. Attorney in the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, has explained Trump's convicted case should no longer be seen as a hush-money case.
He has also criticized a recent petition from his lawyers that argued his sentencing should be postponed to "allow President Trump adequate time to assess and pursue state and federal appellate options in response to any adverse ruling," implying that they might seek to appeal the ruling, as expected or even take action against judge Merchan in federal court.
Trump's legal team argued that if the sentencing proceeded as planned, prosecutors would be required to file their recommendation for Trump's punishment before judge Merchan rules on the immunity.
The timeline, they said, could be "personally and politically prejudicial to President Trump and his family, and harmful to the institution of the presidency."
© 2024 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
