Appeals court rejects Trump’s latest attempt to delay hush money sentencing

A New York appeals court judge has denied US President-elect Donald Trump’s latest bid to delay this week’s sentencing in his hush money case.

In a one-sentence ruling following an emergency hearing, Judge Ellen Gesmer denied Mr Trump’s request for an immediate order that would spare him from being sentenced while he appeals against Judge Juan M Merchan’s decision last week to uphold the historic verdict.

It was the second time in two days that Mr Trump was denied.

Mr Trump went to the Appellate Division of the state’s trial court a day after Judge Merchan rebuffed his initial bid to indefinitely postpone sentencing.

Mr Trump’s sentencing remains on schedule for Friday, though he can still ask other courts to intervene.

At an emergency hearing, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that Mr Trump cannot be sentenced because, as president-elect, he enjoys the same immunity from criminal proceedings as a president.

Judge Merchan had rejected that idea in his ruling last week and Steven Wu, arguing for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said it flew in the face of the long-held concept of one president at a time.

Asked by Judge Gesmer if he could cite anything to support his position, Mr Blanche said: “There’s never been a case like this before.”

But, citing a longstanding Justice Department memorandum on presidential immunity, Mr Blanche said “everybody agrees that President Trump is entitled to complete immunity from any criminal process” once he takes office.

Mr Trump did not attend the hearing.

Mr Trump, less than two weeks from his inauguration, is poised to be the first president to take office convicted of crimes. If his sentencing does not happen before his second term starts January 20, presidential immunity could put it on hold until he leaves office.

Judge Merchan said he will accommodate the transition by allowing him to appear at sentencing by video, rather than in person at a Manhattan courthouse.

He has suggested he will not sentence Mr Trump to jail time or any punishment, but Mr Blanche said that is not binding and asked Judge Gesmer: “If Judge Merchan were to sentence President Trump to 11 days in prison, would the court say, ‘OK now we need to step in?’”

Still, the Republican and his lawyers contend that his sentencing should not go forward because the conviction and indictment should be dismissed. They have previously suggested taking the case all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Judge Merchan last Friday denied Mr Trump’s request to throw out his conviction and dismiss the case because of his impending return to the White House, ruling that Mr Trump’s current status as president-elect does not afford him the same immunity from criminal proceedings as a sitting president.

Judge Merchan wrote that the interests of justice would only be served by “bringing finality to this matter” through sentencing. He said giving Mr Trump what’s known as an unconditional discharge — closing the case without jail time, a fine or probation — “appears to be the most viable solution”.

In his filing on Tuesday, Mr Blanche argued that Judge Merchan’s interpretation of presidential immunity was wrong and that it should extend to a president-elect during “the complex, sensitive process of presidential transition”.

“It is unconstitutional to conduct a criminal sentencing of the president-elect during a presidential transition, and doing so threatens to disrupt that transition and undermine the incoming president’s ability to effectively wield the executive power of the United States,” Mr Blanche wrote.

Mr Trump’s lawyers are also challenging the judge’s prior decision rejecting Mr Trump’s argument that the case should be thrown out because of the US Supreme Court’s ruling last July that gave presidents broad immunity from prosecution.

Manhattan prosecutors have pushed for sentencing to proceed as scheduled, “given the strong public interest in prompt prosecution and the finality of criminal proceedings”.

Mr Trump was convicted last May on charges involving an alleged scheme to hide a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels in the last weeks of Mr Trump’s 2016 campaign to keep her from publicising claims she had had sex with him years earlier. He says that her story is false and that he did nothing wrong.

The case centred on how Mr Trump accounted for reimbursing his then-personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who had made the payment to Ms Daniels. The conviction carried the possibility of punishment ranging from a fine or probation to up to four years in prison.

Mr Trump’s sentencing initially was set for last July 11, then postponed twice at the defence’s request. After the US election, Judge Merchan delayed the sentencing again so the defence and prosecution could contribute on the future of the case.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the public release of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on investigations into Mr Trump as an appeals court considers a challenge.

US District Judge Aileen Cannon made the ruling on Tuesday, the morning after an emergency request by defence lawyers to stop the Justice Department from making the report public — a step that Mr Smith had said could come as early as Friday.

The matter is being considered by the Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling from Judge Cannon may represent a short-lived victory for Mr Trump, but it is nonetheless the latest instance of the Trump-appointed jurist taking action in the Republican’s favour.

Defence lawyers said the report would be one-sided and prejudicial.

Mr Trump responded to Judge Cannon’s order by complaining anew at a news conference about Mr Smith’s investigation and saying: “It’ll be a fake report just like it was a fake investigation.”

Mr Trump was charged alongside two co-defendants in the classified documents case, which was dismissed in July by Judge Cannon, who concluded that Mr Smith’s appointment was illegal.

Mr Trump was also charged in an election interference case that was significantly narrowed by a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.

Mr Smith’s team abandoned both cases in November after Mr Trump’s presidential victory, citing Justice Department policy that prohibits the federal prosecutions of sitting presidents.