In a last-minute effort to avoid an awkward moment in inauguration history, attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump have asked the Supreme Court to intervene in his upcoming sentencing.
In a Wednesday filing to the Supreme Court, Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and John Sauer requested an “emergency stay” in the legal proceedings of Trump’s criminal lawsuit where he was convicted of a felony by a New York jury last May.
Trump’s sentencing is set for Friday, Jan. 10 — just 10 days before he will inaugurated as president — where he could potentially become the first president to be a convicted felon — a label he is using every legal opportunity to avoid.
After being denied by both Judge Juan Merchan, the judge overseeing the case, and the New York Appellate Court, the incoming president’s last hope lies in the hands of the Supreme Court, which includes three justices he appointed during his first term.
Though unwilling to pause sentencing, Merchan, who assigned the sentencing date, said in his filing Monday that he would not require Trump to serve prison time but instead grant an “unconditional discharge,” meaning he will receive no penalty.
A decision that does not satisfy the defense.
In their filing, Trump’s defense lawyers said the pressures of entering the White House should not be distracted by Trump’s legal woes.
“President Trump is currently engaged in the most crucial and sensitive tasks of preparing to assume the Executive Power in less than two weeks, all of which are essential to the United States’ national security and vital interests,” the filing said.
“Forcing President Trump to prepare for a criminal sentencing in a felony case while he is preparing to lead the free world as President of the United States in less than two weeks imposes an intolerable, unconstitutional burden on him that undermines these vital national interests.”
Blanche and Sauer also argued that Trump should be granted presidential immunity as president-elect. This is not the first time Trump has tried to use this argument to dismiss the case entirely.
Both Merchan and the appellate court judge denied that presidential immunity should cancel out the charges against the former president in the “hush money” case. In response, Trump’s defense wrote in the filing to the Supreme Court that the courts “wrongly denied President Trump’s pending motion to dismiss the criminal case based on Presidential immunity.”
They added that the New York courts lack “authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump — or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him— until the resolution of his underlying appeal raising substantial claims of Presidential immunity, including by review in this Court if necessary.”
In a 6-3 ruling last July, the Supreme Court granted all presidents immunity from criminal prosecution regarding any decisions they make under their official duties, but not unofficial ones. The decision was made after Trump’s legal team appealed the decision in the election subversion case brought against him by special counsel Jack Smith.
If the Supreme Court were to side with Trump, the unprecedented decision would make him a private citizen with presidential immunity before he is sworn into office.
The criminal case stems from payments made ahead of Trump’s 2016 presidential win by his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep her silent about a sexual encounter she claimed to have had with the former president back in 2004.
Trump pleaded not guilty and has repeatedly accused the many legal cases against him as politically motivated.
“This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated,” his defense team said in its filing.
The Supreme Court has requested a response from the New York prosecution by Thursday at 10 a.m. ET. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, which brought the case against Trump, said it will respond in court filings.
Justice Department plans to release Jack Smith report
After a temporary block was made on the publication of the special counsel’s final report on Tuesday, the Justice Department told an appellate court on Wednesday in a filing that Attorney General Merrick Garland intended to release Volume 1 of the combined two reports.
“This limited disclosure will further the public interest in keeping congressional leadership apprised of a significant matter within the Department while safeguarding defendants’ interests,” the filing said.
According to the filing, Volume 1 of the report concerns Smith’s evidence as he headed the federal election subversion case against Trump in Washington, D.C. Volume 2 focuses on the classified documents case, which Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed last July, citing Smith’s appointment as special counsel by Garland as unconstitutional.
The Justice Department said the second volume would not be published “so long as defendants’ criminal proceedings remain pending.”
Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, Trump’s co-defendants in the classified documents case, filed an emergency motion on Monday to stall the publication, which Cannon granted. Both defendants and Trump pleaded not guilty.
“To avoid any risk of prejudice to defendants Nauta and De Oliveira, the Attorney General has determined, at the recommendation of the Special Counsel, that he will not publicly release Volume Two so long as defendants’ criminal proceedings remain pending,” the filing said.
The Justice Department requested that the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit remove Cannon’s temporary freeze on the report and approve its plan.
“This limited disclosure will further the public interest in keeping congressional leadership apprised of a significant matter within the Department while safeguarding defendants’ interests,” they said in their filing.