‘Delay, deny, delay’: Inside Trump’s ongoing efforts to blow up his hush money conviction

MANHATTAN (CN) — With a Sept. 18 sentencing looming over Donald Trump following his hush money conviction, the former president’s legal team is aggressively trying numerous strategies to keep him from facing the New York court next month.

Trump first claimed that, because of a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court for broad presidential immunity, certain evidence from the roughly six-week trial should have been withheld from the jury and its verdict vacated. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, the trial judge overseeing the proceedings, postponed Trump’s original July sentencing date to allow for a full briefing on the matter. He’s expected to rule on the immunity argument on Sept. 16.

Earlier this month, Trump asked for his new sentencing date of Sept. 18 to be pushed until after the presidential election in November, claiming that the timing would unduly influence the election process since it could kneecap his campaign. He also argued that the date wouldn’t leave him with enough time to appeal a potentially unfavorable ruling on presidential immunity since Merchan is set to rule on that argument just two days before.

Trump took his latest swing at the conviction late Thursday night, when he asked for the case to be removed to federal court. He argued that the state proceedings under Merchan are causing him “direct and irreparable harm” and violating his constitutional rights. 

With each of these three efforts still pending, Trump’s Sept. 18 sentencing is under attack from multiple directions. But according to retired New York Judge George Grasso, each bid is a baseless attempt from Trump to duck responsibility for his 34 felony charges as he continues to campaign for president as the Republican nominee.

“I think of it as the ‘Three D’ strategy: Delay, deny, delay,” Grasso told Courthouse News on Friday. “That’s what Trump does … At some point, it needs to be confronted.”

When it comes to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, Grasso believes that the hush money case is “tangentially impacted by that decision at best” since the crux of the state prosecution focused on Trump’s behavior prior to becoming president. 

Similarly, Grasso thinks it’s unlikely that Merchan decides to push Trump’s sentencing back any further. Merchan could instead sentence Trump as scheduled, but delay the implementation of the sentence — whether it be jail time, probation or another punishment — until after the election to keep Trump’s campaign from being affected.

“The sentence itself doesn’t need to be implemented, and I think it should not be implemented, until 2025,” Grasso said. “Because not only does he have the legal issues that he wants to pursue on appeal, which he’ll have every right to pursue as any other defendant, there’s also an election.”

Trump’s latest effort to disrupt his conviction — the Thursday request to move the proceedings to the Southern District of New York — could also be his most futile. Trump already failed once to get the case moved to federal court in 2023 under U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein.

Thursday’s removal request falls again to Hellerstein, an experienced litigator who was utterly unconvinced the first time around. Hellerstein also happens to be the same federal judge who released Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen from prison in 2020, finding that Trump’s administration had retaliated against him.

That history doesn’t bode well for Trump, according to Grasso.

“Hellerstein is one of the most experienced judges on the federal bench,” Grasso said. “He’s seen Trump’s tactics previously up close. This isn’t his first rodeo with Trump. Most importantly, the substantive legal issue, as far as I can tell, is not there. So Judge Hellerstein is not going to be bullied or intimidated by these tactics.”

Believing each bid to be a longshot, Grasso said he would be “stunned” if any of Trump’s pending efforts disrupt the case any further.

“At some point in time, he needs to answer to the criminal justice system,” Grasso said. 

Trump has made other recent attempts to fight the hush money conviction, coming up short each time. Earlier this month, he asked Merchan to recuse himself from the case for purported conflicts of interest — Trump’s third such request.

Merchan was unimpressed.

“Defendant has provided nothing new for this court to consider,” Merchan wrote in an Aug. 14 ruling. “Counsel has merely repeated arguments that have already been denied by this and higher courts. Defense counsel’s reliance, and apparent citation to his own prior affirmation, rife with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, is unavailing.”

Trump was convicted in May on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records stemming from a hush money scheme during his 2016 presidential run. A Manhattan jury found that Trump tried to cover up payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels by falsely labeling them as standard legal fees, running afoul of state law.

At trial, Daniels told jurors that she was paid $130,000 to keep her from telling the media that she had sex with Trump in 2006 while he was married. Trump continues to deny the encounter.

Follow @Uebey

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit