Lawyers for former President Trump are requesting his sentencing hearing in New York v. Trump be delayed until after the November presidential election, citing ‘naked election-interference objectives.’ 

Trump was found guilty in an unprecedented criminal trial on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, following a six-week trial stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation.

Trump has moved to overturn his criminal conviction in the Manhattan case after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a former president has substantial immunity for official acts committed while in office. 

His initial sentencing was set for July 11 — just days before the Republican National Convention, where he was set to be formally nominated as the 2024 GOP presidential nominee, but Judge Juan Merchan agreed to delay that until Sept. 18. 

Trump attorney Todd Blanche on Thursday moved to further delay that sentencing hearing. 

‘The Court should adjourn any sentencing in this case, though one should not be necessary because dismissal and vacatur of the jury’s verdicts are required based on Presidential immunity, until after the 2024 Presidential election,’ Blanche wrote in a letter to Merchan. 

Blanche argued that the case ‘should be dismissed’ and pointed to the fact that Vice President Kamala Harris, in her capacity as the Democratic presidential nominee, and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, in his capacity as the Democratic vice presidential nominee, ‘wrongly referred to this case in a public speech.’ 

Blanche also pointed to Merchan’s daughter’s work at Authentic Campaigns, which represents top Democratic candidates. 

‘Sentencing is currently scheduled to occur after the commencement of early voting in the Presidential election,’ Blanche wrote. ‘By adjourning sentencing until after the election — which is of paramount importance to the entire nation, including tens of millions of people who do not share the views of Authentic, its executives, and its clients — the Court would reduce, even if not eliminate, issues regarding the integrity of any future proceedings.’ 

Blanche stressed that there is no need ‘to rush.’ 

‘Setting aside naked election-interference objectives, there is no valid countervailing reason for the Court to keep the current sentencing date on the calendar,’ Blanche wrote. ‘There is no basis for continuing to rush.’ 

He added, ‘Accordingly, we respectfully request that any sentencing, if one is needed, be adjourned until after the Presidential election.’ 

In his arguments for dismissal, Blanche argued that Bragg offered official acts evidence during the six-week-long unprecedented criminal trial. Blanche said that included official White House communications with staffers like Hope Hicks, Madeleine Westerhout and others. 

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office but not for unofficial acts. The high court said Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for ‘official acts’ but left it to the lower court to determine exactly where the line between official and unofficial is.