Trump’s November sentencing in hush money case now in jeopardy after judge delays ruling on verdict

Sign up for the daily Inside Washington email for exclusive US coverage and analysis sent to your inbox Get our free Inside Washington email Get our free Inside Washington email SIGN UP I would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy policy The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s historic hush money trial is delaying a ruling on whether to toss out a verdict after the Supreme Court’s landmark “immunity” ruling. According to emails filed in court, the president-elect’s attorneys asked for a delay in the days after he won the presidential election, arguing that throwing out the case is “necessary to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.” In response, Manhattan prosecutors asked the court to adjourn the upcoming scheduled dates “to afford the People time to assess these recent developments” and to make their arguments about “appropriate steps going forward.” open image in gallery Donald Trump, pictured sitting in New York Justice Juan Merchan’s courtroom in Manhattan in April, will face another delay on whether the verdict in his hush money case can be tossed out On May 30, a jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records in connection with a scheme to silence adult film star Stormy Daniels, whose story about having sex with Trump threatened to derail his 2016 presidential campaign. “Rather than wait for the Supreme Court’s guidance, the prosecutors scoffed with hubris at President Trump’s immunity motion” and “insisted on rushing to trial” before the Supreme Court’s decision. open image in gallery New York Justice Juan Merchan pushed back a decision on Trump’s ‘immunity’ claims in his hush money case until November 19 — a week before the president-elect was scheduled to be sentenced Blanche argued that Alvin Bragg’s office forced the court to “front-run the Supreme Court on a federal constitutional issue with grave implications for the operation of the federal government and the relationships between state and federal officials.” “The record is clear: was wrong, very wrong,” Blanche added.