OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Following his conviction on 34 felony counts in his New York City hush money trial last week, former President Donald Trump called on the Supreme Court to take action in anticipation of his July sentencing.
The Republican National Convention in Milwaukee begins four days before Trump’s sentencing on July 11 in the New York case, which he complained about in a post on Truth Social. The GOP is expected to formally nominate Trump for president during this convention.
The former president also used the article to criticize Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), who initiated the accusations against him. He claimed it was unfair that these two “will make a decision which will determine the future of our Nation.”
“The United States Supreme Court MUST DECIDE!” Trump posted.
Trump was convicted last week after a jury of 12 New Yorkers found him guilty on all counts of falsifying business records to conceal alleged affairs during his 2016 campaign.
“He could face jail time, though first-time offenders on charges like Trump’s are rarely incarcerated. Bragg declined to say whether prosecutors will seek jail time for the former president, insisting prosecutors would speak through their court filings in coming weeks,” The Hill reported.
“Trump is scheduled to be sentenced July 11. He has said he will appeal the guilty verdict, which would go to a higher New York court. The U.S. Supreme Court is already weighing a separate case in which the former president has argued he should be immune from prosecution over his actions after the 2020 election, when he tried to subvert the results,” the outlet added.
“If the conservative-majority court agrees with Trump on that case, many of his other pending criminal indictments could unwind. Even if the court does not go that far, its decision could delay actions in several of Trump’s cases beyond the November election,” The Hill continued.
Trump’s attorney and legal spokeswoman recently provided a big update on the Manhattan trial.
During an interview on Newsmax, Alina Habba criticized the Democrat-dominated justice system in New York City as “third world.” She suggested that the judge presiding over her client’s hush money trial routinely infringes upon Trump’s constitutional rights to a fair trial.
Habba addressed the nearly unprecedented gag order on Trump’s business records criminal trial in Manhattan, the first against a former president.
“The gag orders, the unconstitutionality. I mean, what is more Colombia? Russia? What is more third world?” Habba told Newsmax TV host Carl Higbie. “This is why we have people pouring into our country, running for freedom. And now we’re gonna be like that. You know, we are that. It’s disgusting.”
During one courtroom session, Judge Juan Merchan chastised Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, as he vigorously defended Trump against the gag order. Blanche contended that Trump’s responses to political attacks shouldn’t warrant punishment, but Merchan rebuked him, stating that he was “losing all credibility” on the matter.
“What happened in court with the gag order and the anger that you’re seeing from these judges; it’s very concerning for me,” Habba said.
WATCH:
District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s victory in prosecuting Trump on all 34 counts in his hush-money case could potentially backfire on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s attempts to find the 45th president guilty of 44 more charges that were presented in federal courts in the districts of Florida and Washington, D.C.
The New York County ruling coincides with the US Supreme Court deliberating Trump’s argument that presidents should have perpetual “absolute” immunity for their actions in their official capacities.
According to the special counsel, no such protection or illegal activity, such as plotting to rig the election, is always criminally prosecutable.
The immunity question does not immediately affect the hush money verdict at this time. It seems that Trump has acknowledged the private nature of the conduct in question.
